Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Testing Voice Calling In Gmail

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the can-you-hear-me-now dept.

Tootech writes "Google could be adding the ability to make phone calls from the Google Chat interface. Google is testing a Web-based service within Gmail that will allow users to place phone calls from their in-boxes. It's launched from the Google Chat window on the lower left-hand side of a Gmail page and allows users to place and receive calls from within their contacts through a user interface that strongly resembles the one used in Google Voice."

114 comments

  1. Finally by gedw99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    this is great news. anyone know if it will be global, and not just US based ?

    1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it will be global. Right after those eggs in your fridge hatch into little pink curly-tailed piglets. You have asked this question so I assume we're already past the pigs flying stage, right?

    2. Re:Finally by Superken7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yep, I am still waiting for google voice to be available over here...

      I don't like it when they roll out new products which are only available in certain countries. Checkout (android paid apps) and voice for instance :(

    3. Re:Finally by mark72005 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Personally, I found Google voice to be underwhelming. While the feature set is nice, as is the convenience, the sound quality is not great on the voicemail. I also had several people report that (while I was receiving some messages) they would sometimes be routed to a message that said my mailbox was not set up.

      I quit and went back to using the regular carrier service, I need more reliability...

    4. Re:Finally by Ironhandx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its great news, and it isn't.

      I for one use chat so that I don't have to talk to anyone... including the option to talk to the person isn't making my day any better.

      This is a very useful calls for cheap feature, but I hope they add a way to disable it. Maybe a sort of "mute" button but the mute hides your ability to talk to the other person.

      I know that sounds anti social, but I spend a good portion of my day glued to a phone for business reasons. I don't feel like being glued to one again at night for family reasons.

    5. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because as a developer I must make sure that before anyone gets anything everyone must be served equally.

      Maybe everyone dose not want to wait for google to get numbers in the entire world for some to get it. Maybe developers do not want to go through all the work to get there apps out to multiple countries. Maybe you should move.

    6. Re:Finally by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      This is all nice and good, but, I sure wish they'd not phase out the 'classic' gmail look. I just don't like the new interface, and can't imagine it takes THAT much effort to keep this older, simpler one around?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Finally by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      There is little work required to get Google Voice to work in Canada. It *DID* work in Canada before Google *removed* support. In fact, it does still work in one area code in Alberta.

      And since Canada and the US use the same country code (1), and support was already there, it shouldn't be particularly difficult to support Canada...

    8. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should learn the difference between "there" and "their". And add "they're" to the mix while you're at it. Who knows, maybe one day you'll need it.

    9. Re:Finally by revlayle · · Score: 1

      Keeping more than one version of anything requires effort and more people. Also, it's not THAT much different. A few links and buttons were moved around and panels changed a bit. Other than that, I can't really tell what else has changed. If you're complaining about that...i mean really... i'll just get off your lawn now.

    10. Re:Finally by Defenestrar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Keeping more than one version of anything requires effort and more people...

      It doesn't mean that I still don't mourn the keyboard commands in Pine

    11. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrible news!

      I just don't know what would happen if a certain subset of IRC contacts which found me on google chat ever heard me answer with a male voice.

    12. Re:Finally by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So use alpine. You can install it locally, and connect to gmail via imap. I like mutt for that, but to each his own.

    13. Re:Finally by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      Portability.

      I can just imagine the reaction of my IT guy when I ask him to get management approval (who would require legal to review the open license) for "non standard" software just so that I can have convenient keyboard shortcuts while checking personal email at work...

    14. Re:Finally by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Keeping more than one version of anything requires effort and more people. Also, it's not THAT much different. A few links and buttons were moved around and panels changed a bit. Other than that, I can't really tell what else has changed. If you're complaining about that...i mean really... i'll just get off your lawn now."

      That, and I find the newer version, is MUCH slower...on older hardware.

      I've got an old iBook G3...and am stuck at an older version of Firefox on it....and the newer version of Gmail is just dog slow.

      Just liked to keep using an old lappy that is chugging along, and for just webmail, I'd like to keep using it...it should suffice, but the webmail part has gotten just too big and slow with all of the (IMHO) unneeded additions. How about just simple web facing email? Or, at least give options to turn most of the crap like chat and what-have-you off?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:Finally by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      How about just simple web facing email? Or, at least give options to turn most of the crap like chat and what-have-you off?

      ...
      Scroll down to the bottom, there are links to turn off buzz and chat, or to go to a straight HTML interface with no javascript...

      I cannot emphasize the dot dot dot impatience enough.

    16. Re:Finally by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Except for the little problem not being able to get an actual number where you live. I'm sure everybody I know would just love to call me internationally.

    17. Re:Finally by olyar · · Score: 1

      The existing version of chat has an option to do audio chat with another Gmail user.

      Starting a voice chat requires a separate connection hand shake. So I can be text chatting with someone and if they try to move to voice and I don't want to, I just don't answer the call. If you need an excuse, it's that you don't have a microphone on your machine, or whatever.

      My guess is that this will work in a similar fashion.

      --
      Custom, hands-free Linux installs. Instalinux
    18. Re:Finally by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      You seem to be missing the point. It used to be possible to GET numbers where you live in Canada, as far as I know. Google removed the pre-existing support for this.

    19. Re:Finally by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, Google has a nasty habit of creating products and then restricting them for no particular reason.

    20. Re:Finally by davester666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you sure it's Google's fault? The Telco incumbents went after Skype using the CRTC to limit what services Skype could offer in Canada. Bizarrely, the CRTC ruled Skype can't offer SkypeIn [where you get a number that other people can call you] because Skype doesn't provide proper 911 service [why they would tie a service where you call them with a service for others to call you].

      It could easily something similar for GoogleVoice...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    21. Re:Finally by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's possible. On the other hand, Google doesn't offer Voice publicly, and doesn't offer it in ANY country outside the US.

    22. Re:Finally by Guspaz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google Voice went public in late June.

      Google Voice was originally GrandCentral, which supported Canada. Google bought out GrandCentral, and removed support for Canada as part of their transition. They kept support for one area code in Alberta, however, for reasons no-one is quite sure.

    23. Re:Finally by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I love mutt...but I can't figure how to keep it from downloading EVERYTHING from gmail via imap every time it accesses it....any tips?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Product merger perhaps? by dmgxmichael · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Perhaps Google takes this lesson from Wave's failure -- merge products together, don't dev them out on an island where they won't be used.

    1. Re:Product merger perhaps? by Superken7 · · Score: 1, Informative

      except for buzz, where everybody turned it off because it interfered with the GMail experience.

      And BTW, wave.google.com has been a failure, wave as a technology and protocol still rocks.
      GMail, docs and other google products are being reworked to have wave technology under the hood, and companies are starting to use the wave protocol and its technologies to deliver rich collaboration.

    2. Re:Product merger perhaps? by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Google takes this lesson from Wave's failure -- merge products together, don't dev them out on an island where they won't be used.

      See it as merging email with phone, and it won't work.
      But... see it as merging chat with phone, and it's alright.

    3. Re:Product merger perhaps? by prestomation · · Score: 1

      GMail, docs and other google products are being reworked to have wave technology under the hood, and companies are starting to use the wave protocol and its technologies to deliver rich collaboration.

      *Citation Needed*

    4. Re:Product merger perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      except for buzz, where everybody turned it off because it interfered with the GMail experience.
      And BTW, wave.google.com has been a failure, wave as a technology and protocol still rocks. GMail, docs and other google products are being reworked to have wave technology under the hood, and companies are starting to use the wave protocol and its technologies to deliver rich collaboration.

      BINGO!! I've got Bingo!

    5. Re:Product merger perhaps? by duguk · · Score: 4, Funny

      BINGO!! I've got Bingo!

      Dammit! I was only waiting for 'Synergy'!

    6. Re:Product merger perhaps? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      This isn't buzzwordy enough. Where am I being enlightened about the synergy I'll gain from using wave?

    7. Re:Product merger perhaps? by weszz · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I think the excitement that he unveiled was perfectly credulous. We need to incorporate it into the vision as we strive for excellence in our everyday existence. THAT is how you will utilize synergy to its fullest potential to enhance your value to the bottom line. This is nanotechnology age excellence.

    8. Re:Product merger perhaps? by mark72005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      My card sucked, I still needed "alignment", "visibility", and "win-win"

    9. Re:Product merger perhaps? by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      I've got "Nazi" - it's a sure win on the internet, but sometimes it takes a while.

    10. Re:Product merger perhaps? by flibuste · · Score: 1

      Still waiting for someone to 'touchbase' with in order to 'streamline' this new Google feature and 'leverage' our financial costs using it.

    11. Re:Product merger perhaps? by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      What the hell does "touch base" even mean? Where did that most irritating term come from?

    12. Re:Product merger perhaps? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Buzzword overload.##### This email will self-destruct in 60 seconds.###########

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    13. Re:Product merger perhaps? by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      "Touch base" comes from ye olde American Baseball. You have to touch a base in order to continue on to the next one; you can't just run past the place where the base is.

  3. Open Handset Alliance by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

    I bet this will go over like a lead balloon with their Android partners.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    1. Re:Open Handset Alliance by darkmeridian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would it? Making a phone call from your computer has always been available using Skype. Gmail Voice would not be creating a new market. Perhaps it would widen the market but it wouldn't be a completely new threat to cell phones. Anyway, Android is allowing cellphone manufacturers to get in the game against iPhone. Before Android, it didn't seem like anyone had a chance against the Blackberry/iPhone juggernauts. Now all the best non-iPhone/Blackberry devices are based on Android.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    2. Re:Open Handset Alliance by iammani · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Making a phone call from your computer has always been available using Skype.

      Available, yes. Free, no!

    3. Re:Open Handset Alliance by mauriceh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But Skype and Fring sold us out on VOIP calling on Android.
      Now to do Skype on Android you have to be on Verizon.

      --
      Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
    4. Re:Open Handset Alliance by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Insanely cheap. And ad free. Google's free services are ad supported. If you don't want ads, you have to pay. So precedent says you'll have two choices - pay for voice calling or put up with ads when you make calls.

    5. Re:Open Handset Alliance by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      Get Google voice. Then go to SIPGate and get a phone number. Install FreePBX on a cheap used computer you have lying around. Add an unlocked Linksys pap2 VOIP adapter. Plug in a phone. Set FREEPBX to work with GV and your number from SIPGate. Tell your VOIP adapter to work with FreePBX.

      Works wonders and operates like a regular phone except without paying $30.00 a month in charges. Or using FreePBX's offering to get unlimited trunks for $25.00 a month. You can even set up extensions throughout your house if you get multiple Linksys pap2 VOIP adapters.

      Free incoming and outgoing local and long distance calls in the US and Canada.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  4. Language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm curious to see what language/technology this runs on. Being Google they would probably try to do it in Javascript. To see VoIP calls in Javascript... I would be very impressed.

    1. Re:Language? by aiht · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure (I didn't glean any actual information from TFA beyond 'gmail will add phone calls') but I suspect that the new web-based client-side calling software might be related to the existing web-based client-side calling software that is already integrated into gmail...
      Not Javascript, I'm sorry to say - Netscape plugin.

  5. Excellent! by camperdave · · Score: 1

    This is great news! Now I'll be receiving ads for cheap pharmaceuticals on my voicemail. That'll be ever so much more convenient.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Excellent! by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      So it will be like the golden age of telemarketing again, before all those pesky "Do Not Call" registries....

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    2. Re:Excellent! by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that there's a lovely "Spam" button that will send the callers to a custom message, I have a fun message set up for them.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  6. How to tie this into targeted advertisements? by perpenso · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The real question is how will they tie this into targeted advertising (their real business)? Is it just a screen where they can display ads based on the personal profile they have already developed or do/will they use voice recognition to do keyword searches based on conversation content? This is not necessarily tinfoil hat territory, the already do this with gmail. The text of a gmail message is scanned(*) for keywords so that they can do contextual (targeted) ads on your gmail page. Voice recognition is a difficult but interesting and fun research area that might appeal to some at google. It might be interesting to keep an eye on the end user agreement.

    "Ad targeting in Gmail is fully automated, and no humans read your email in order to target advertisements or related information. This type of automated scanning is how many email services, not just Gmail, provide features like spam filtering and spell checking. Ads are selected for relevance and served by Google computers using the same contextual advertising technology that powers Google's AdSense program." http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=6603

    1. Re:How to tie this into targeted advertisements? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Voice recognition is a difficult but interesting and fun research area that might appeal to some at google.

      It's hard to wreck a nice beach.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:How to tie this into targeted advertisements? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has near-real-time voice recognition now (it is performed against youtube videos after they are uploaded to generate searchable subtitles) and at a recent conference Google CEO Eric Schmidt said “We are not quite there [real-time] yet, but it is coming.“ So when real-time VR is ready, will Google be listening so the callers get conversation-specific ads on the gmail end and on smart phones? You know they're going to monetize this somehow, and targetted ads is the name of their game. To quote someone else, "What is the value of connecting you, your location, your interests, your availability, your contacts, your devices all into a single service?"

  7. Voice and Gizmo5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    calls placed to U.S. or Canadian numbers will be free

    YES!!!

    I, for one, certainly hope that Google will put Android, Gizmo5, and Voice all together into something amazing and wonderful. Soon, we should be able to get rid of these silly "voice" phone plans, and go for a simple data plan, using VoIP to make "calls". Once this catches on, communication will never be the same. Today is certainly the future of yesterday!

    1. Re:Voice and Gizmo5 by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Be ready for expensive data only plans though.

      Right now, my Data is $25, my Voice $60, both unlimited.

      But networks are actually using more data than voice, so the data only plan would be expected to be at least half that, if not more. I know I do.

      180 * 60 seconds * 13 kbit/s * 30 = 500 MB, for 3 hours/day talk time, or 5400 minutes/month.

      I generally go over 1 GB in data, and the voip isn't going to save them any, as it's still the same bitrate as the talk.

      I doubt that many people use their phone three hours a day (I know I don't), the point was an extreme case. Consider this, max voice traffic possible is 4GB/month. They charge $40-$60 for unlimited voice, be ready to pay a lot for any reasonable amount of traffic, already the voice is essentially irrelevant, and probably wouldn't drop costs much at all.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  8. Just what i need by DFurno2003 · · Score: 0, Troll

    My Inbox buying Viagra and WOW gold on its own.

  9. Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by eviljolly · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been using Google voice as my primary number for over a year now. It has it's downsides, but for a free service it's great. I like that I'm not tied into a single phone or carrier. No matter where I am, as long as I have a phone I can set it to receive calls.

    I don't know how much I would even use calling built into Gmail, but I surely won't complain about added functionality. The problem I've found with using computers as phones is that you are tied sitting down in one location, most likely stuck with a headset on since using speakers would result in lots of echo. Applications like Teamspeak and Ventrilo make sense because usually when you're using them, you're already at a computer.
     

    1. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by eviljolly · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      *its

      I wish Slashdot had a grace period for editing comments, because this is really bugging me now :/

    2. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You're not tied to a single phone or carrier with a regular number, either.

      And there's nothing wrong with "it's".

      "Slashdot has Slashdot's downsides - it has it's downsides."

      The "rule" about possessive pronouns is baseless. It is an attempt to avoid ambiguity, though the rule only applies to pronouns, not nouns in general. The rule is only able to exist because pronouns take different forms based on being singular or plural or being an object or a subject ("it" vs "they", "her" vs "their"). Regular nouns do not do this, and thus, there is no way to shoehorn a half-assed rule in to cover all nouns. The ambiguity only exists because people have accepted contractions into the formal language. If you abhor ambiguity, you should fight against the contractions, not against using an apostrophe to indicate possessiveness in a small subset of nouns (the pronouns).

    3. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a bluetooth headset.

    4. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a "Preview" button.

    5. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I've never had an issue with echo when using speakers and a mic for VOIP. I'm not sure whether it's a hardware or software solution, but speakerphones have been a solved problem for a long time now, especially beyond computers. Where machines exist that have that problem, sure, you'll need a headset, but I've never burdened myself with that sort of setup.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      We deal with a lot of international clients and right now Skype offers us the best deal of easily being able to acquire local phone numbers for our clients to call without paying huge routing fees, etc.. Having to sit in front of a computer used to be the problem until Skype for iPhone was released. Still had to be in wifi range at the time and logged into skype on the iphone, but if you knew a call was scheduled, you could take it on the phone. Now, however, with the multitasking Skype app and calls over 3g, you can use an iPhone and not be tied to your computer.

      Not sure if Google plans to offer this for phones or not. What will be interesting to see is what ISP's do. Especially those ISP's that happen to be phone providers as well. I've already seen complaints with throttling of Vonage. Wonder if they will do it to Google too.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    7. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by amentajo · · Score: 1

      Flawed by design for this purpose. I can see all the words I typed without hitting "Preview", so "Preview" does not add value here.

      It's best used to make sure that formatting works and to make sure you know how slow Slashdot is.

    8. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It calls your phone, and then connects you to the other number. No headset involved.

    9. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I don't know how much I would even use calling built into Gmail, but I surely won't complain about added functionality. The problem I've found with using computers as phones is that you are tied sitting down in one location, most likely stuck with a headset on since using speakers would result in lots of echo.

      Lots of people already make phone calls while sitting in front of a computer -- and use the computer while making the phone call. In those cases, not needing to go to a separate device to place the call has obvious utility. And, as an email app, GMail is a place where people are likely to receive a communication that they might want to follow up via another medium -- text and voice chatting are already integrated into GMail, so adding voice calling to phones is a fairly obvious extension.

      Applications like Teamspeak and Ventrilo make sense because usually when you're using them, you're already at a computer.

      If you are using GMail, you're already at a computer, too.

    10. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ducomputergeek: Not sure if Google plans to offer this for phones or not. What will be interesting to see is what ISP's do. Especially those ISP's that happen to be phone providers as well. I've already seen complaints with throttling of Vonage. Wonder if they will do it to Google too.

      This is where their deal with Verizon would come in handy. Throttle everyone but Google.

    11. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by jbarr · · Score: 1

      I don't know how much I would even use calling built into Gmail, but I surely won't complain about added functionality. The problem I've found with using computers as phones is that you are tied sitting down in one location, most likely stuck with a headset on since using speakers would result in lots of echo. Applications like Teamspeak and Ventrilo make sense because usually when you're using them, you're already at a computer.

      I think you misunderstand the technology. When you initiate the call from within Google Voice, (and presumably within Gmail) Google Voice rings your defined phone. You pick it up, then rings the other party. You can get up and leave or do whatever you want, because at this point, it's all on your phone. You aren't tied to the computer other than to initiate the call.

      --
      My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    12. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by jbarr · · Score: 1

      Actually, I stand corrected. It appears that the "Call phone" feature being added into Gmail requires a "Voice plugin" that would require you being tied to the computer after initiating the call. (http://www.google.com/chat/voice/)

      --
      My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    13. Re:Are computers a convenient place to make calls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called a smart-phone, fool. E.g. i use skype on my nokia 5800 to call my parents landlines on the other side of the world unlimited for 5 euro / month. i also have a online number so my parents can call me. i just keep skype running in the background at all times and the experience is essentially the same as with a normal phone call, and i dont have to sit in front of a computer with a headset on to speak to them. if google ends up offering something similar but at a cheaper rate or with better compression i would switch.

  10. One Word: ( +1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Botnets !

    Yours In Osh,
    Kilgore Trout

  11. Less creepy methods more likely by supermariosd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Voice recognition might be an option, but I think it's more likely that they'll get their revenue from charging for non-Gmail-to-Gmail calls (calling "real" phones) and attracting more users to Gmail (and thus Gmail's targeted advertising) with the new feature.

    1. Re:Less creepy methods more likely by perpenso · · Score: 1

      Voice recognition might be an option, but I think it's more likely that they'll get their revenue from charging for non-Gmail-to-Gmail calls (calling "real" phones) and attracting more users to Gmail (and thus Gmail's targeted advertising) with the new feature.

      I generally agree with respect to the short term. However I think it has less to do with "creepiness" and more to do with the current state of voice recognition software and the hardware requirements of such software. Things that time and money can overcome. Like personal phone conversations, personal email is generally considered private. Scanning an email for ad keywords has a creepy component to it also and they have shown a willingness to cross that line.

  12. You can have all android paid apps you want. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google for Android Market Enabler.

  13. Not sure why by jDeepbeep · · Score: 2, Informative

    Calls would only be being placed with those in your contacts book. Your contacts would have to be poisoned first somehow, and not everyone who emails you is put into contacts unless you compose mail to them, or reply to them (ergo creating a discussion).

    PS: in a literal mood, but i did recognize you were being humorous ;)

    --
    Reply to That ||
  14. Sametime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like function that's been in Lotus Sametime for awhile.

  15. Yo Dawg by halfaperson · · Score: 4, Funny

    I heard you like to chat, so we put a chat in your chat so you can chat while you chat.

    --
    Jesus had a UNIX beard.
    1. Re:Yo Dawg by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      LEAVE XZIBIT ALONE!!!

  16. Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the fascination with Google? Google wants all your searching, all your email, and now all your voice. The conspiracy theorist in me tells me there is something going on.

  17. in-box? by CrashandDie · · Score: 0, Troll

    The 90s called, they want their dash back.

  18. I could see how this could be useful by muppetman462 · · Score: 1

    If you could tie your google name to your google voice number, then instead of people getting your phone number, they could click on your user name, and then select call, it rings your phone, then when you pick up, it calls the other person. If that's the case, that would rock!

  19. Sure, Confuse the kids by boristdog · · Score: 1, Funny

    Kids today all think that their phones are basically just for text messages, not voice calls.

    Now they'll think e-mail is for voice calls, not text messages.

    What's next? Using the refrigerator to cook food and the microwave to store it?

  20. voice recognition by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    Voice recognition is a difficult but interesting and fun research area that might appeal to some at google.

    It sure is. Take a look at my last transcribed voicemail from Google Voice. (scrubbed for my name)

    Hey **** HEB anything I do have my pen on me And I was stopping with Lia, emptied a Mac said paper cut, give me the following your friends with the Good day Bye. Bye. And. And then I got home and I saw your message, anyway. Dan that we met you. I would've been paid. But we are debt for beach tonight. If you are but she said she wants to start. What wanna start early early. So, I'm not sure what what that means, but I don't know, probably like. Talk to you Give me a call on my side it 3000 and voicemail. Bye.

    --
    Reply to That ||
    1. Re:voice recognition by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Easy...

      Custom Mac Emptying Service - Having trouble emptying your Mac? Click here for 15% off!

      Beach Mortgages - Special mortgage offers for people in extreme debt! Beaches, wetlands, and lakes!

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  21. preposterous by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    The problem I've found with using computers as phones is that you are tied sitting down in one location

    Are you trying to make me believe there is life beyond my chair?

    --
    Reply to That ||
    1. Re:preposterous by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      Well, last time I checked, the mold on your basement walls still counted as life. So yes. Beyond that, it gets hypothetical.

  22. What is wrong with SIP by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The thing I don't get is that they don't have any support for SIP (well, there is Gizmo, which is closed to just about everybody). They're inventing fancy web-interfaces for voice calls (anybody know if they work without flash?), but they can't support SIP - a protocol specifically designed to handle these kinds of situations. Indeed, if they used SIP and you ended up calling somebody else using SIP they could save all the bandwidth by directing the phones to just talk to each other.

    It seems like Google is tending to take the MS route - they don't just want to provide a service, they want to control how you can access it. Sure, some of their products are more open - maybe they just can't figure out what kind of company they want to be.

    Google - please just give us a SIP interface. I don't care if you even advertise it - just bury the settings in some help page and everybody else will build the front-ends for you...

    1. Re:What is wrong with SIP by jqh1 · · Score: 1

      but they can't support SIP - a protocol specifically designed to handle these kinds of situations

      Can't, don't, or don't yet? With google voice, they're two trivial steps away from letting wifi capable phones call and receive calls anywhere in the US (and probably elsewhere) for free, with no SIM card installed, even - 1) set up a SIP gateway and allow (android/iOS,etc. or computer based) softphones to connect it to it using Google's existing authentication bindery, 2) allow Google Voice users to direct calls to the gateway (and 3), I guess, create user interfaces (Android, etc.) for making calls that are more convenient than their website tool). I don't see a business model there, but it would be really cool

      You can string this stuff together with GV and other existing services, so I know it works :)

      --
      who's moderating the meta-moderators?
    2. Re:What is wrong with SIP by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      The thing I don't get is that they don't have any support for SIP (well, there is Gizmo, which is closed to just about everybody). They're inventing fancy web-interfaces for voice calls (anybody know if they work without flash?)

      AFAIK, the Google web interfaces are all HTML+CSS+JS.

    3. Re:What is wrong with SIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evils like google dosnt follow standard protocols :)
      They have the same intentions like other similar efforts (MSN, Skype, Yahoo, etc).
      None of them are using any standard protocol.

      And for this to work from the browsers, they can use flash (there is a lot of flash based sip clients) or java applet (like the mizu webphone).

    4. Re:What is wrong with SIP by jqh1 · · Score: 1

      btw the interface just popped up in my gmail account, so I tried calling my cell phone, and the caller ID on my cell phone showed my Google Voice number, so perhaps these services aren't so distinct. Maybe a gmail user who doesn't have a Google Voice account could chime in.

      --
      who's moderating the meta-moderators?
    5. Re:What is wrong with SIP by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "It seems like Google is tending to take the MS route - they don't just want to provide a service, they want to control how you can access it."

      Of course they do. Google is an advertising company. They have no interest at all in providing services to you, they want to provide ads. Everything else is just the means of getting you to look (listen in future?) to the ads.

    6. Re:What is wrong with SIP by wellard1981 · · Score: 1

      I don't have Google Voice since I live in the great white north. Caller ID shows the number as 1-760-705-8888.

    7. Re:What is wrong with SIP by u235meltdown · · Score: 1

      Well, to think from their perspective... if they allow a service that costs them plenty and is already free to go out of their control, how are they ever going to monetize it?
      Don't get me wrong I would love to have a GUI client on my computer to let me call internationally at Google's rates, but then the free calling to US may disappear since they can't pair it with AdSense.

    8. Re:What is wrong with SIP by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Google already provides this. They have specific support for Gizmo.

      Google bought Gizmo a while back, and I have a Gizmo account (I happened to have mine before the buyout, but my Google Voice account is also a migrated Grand Central account from before Google bought out Grand Central, so Google buying all of this out had no effect on me at all).

      Gizmo is integrated with my Google Voice account, all free. Works great. I have a standard Linksys VoIP box that I bought that hooks into Gizmo's SIP gateway and when I want to make a call I simply log into Google Voice, tell it I want to call FROM my Gizmo box TO phone number xyz, my Gizmo phone rings, and when I pick it up it dials through to the number I want to call. Since it's all incoming minutes to Gizmo, that's free, and no charge for US calls in Google Voice. When I get an incoming call, my cell phone, office phone, and Gizmo line all ring, and I can answer them on any device I want.

      Any and all SIP devices welcome, since Gizmo uses the bog standard SIP protocols.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    9. Re:What is wrong with SIP by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Correction: My apologies, I didn't realize they weren't accepting new users for Gizmo yet. Maybe that's what the Gmail launch is all about.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    10. Re:What is wrong with SIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a lot of crappy explanations, Google uses XMPP and Jingle both Standard protocols. Why Google would bother to create a secondary routing layer if they have the reliable and extensible XMPP.

      SIP is stone aged, blurry, badly specified and Google protocol is not closed. Sorry, read first criticize later.

    11. Re:What is wrong with SIP by KXGBD3C0 · · Score: 1

      What is the protocol @ gmail phone? What sort of external phone (other than a mike in the sound card) can one use with this new sevice?

    12. Re:What is wrong with SIP by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      And do these protocols work for Google Voice - or only for Google Talk?

      If they work for Voice, then I'd agree that this is completely open.

  23. Telecoms are going to hate this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was just looking for a way to avoid paying for voice mail on my cell.

  24. GTalk+Asterisk=WORKS by skliarie · · Score: 1

    Just compiled the latests asterisk from SVN and it WORKS! All my friends can call me at normal handset! I can now call my asterisk from GTalk! At zero configuration! RIP SIP! We barely knew ye... For technically minded: http://svn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/team/phsultan/gmail-voice-video

  25. Common Carrier Defense? by u235meltdown · · Score: 1

    So what happens now that two of the 3 points they used to defend themselves against ATT are gone?

    1. Re:Common Carrier Defense? by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

      One of two things: 1) They give up the fight, which is kind of unlikely. 2) They points out that they still have one point, and money changes hands in the hope they can continue defending themselves.

  26. Re: sound quality by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    However, I am faced with a total cell hole disaster on AT&T's network, so anything at all would be a quality improvement!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  27. Why would someone what to talk to my inbox??? by billrp · · Score: 1

    "Google is testing a Web-based service within Gmail that will allow users to place phone calls from their in-boxes."

    1. Re:Why would someone what to talk to my inbox??? by xenapan · · Score: 1

      I dont know about you but my inbox has google search in it. Therefore its all knowing. Or at least all web searching.

      --
      insert funny sig here
  28. u.s. based by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

    this is great news. anyone know if it will be global, and not just US based ?

    For now, it is U.S. based. From the GMail Blog:

    We’re rolling out this feature to U.S. based Gmail users over the next few days

    --
    Reply to That ||
    1. Re:u.s. based by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works in Canada. I just can't use all of the Google Voice features that let people return calls, etc. Still, since I'm a cheap bastard, any chance to make free long distance calls I'll take!

  29. Re:Sure, Confuse the kids (and moms) by hicksw · · Score: 1

    Mom had a Coldspot cooker and a Hotpoint refrigerator.

  30. Is it open for everybody? by Andis · · Score: 1

    I got the call phone in my gmail account. Does everybody or are they just giving it out to a few? I can call for free to the US and Canada, and they have pretty low rates for calling internationally, I every country I would ever want to call to, and more...

    1. Re:Is it open for everybody? by teh_tecchie · · Score: 1

      It seems haphazard, it's available on 2 of my 3 Gmail accounts and it shouldn't even be on any as I'm in the UK!

  31. Open in the UK by teh_tecchie · · Score: 1

    I've got 3 Gmail accounts (am in the UK) and it's there in 2 of them but not the other, which is kinda odd. It was only supposed to be on some accounts in error and "briefly" ... but mine is still there days later. Oh well, I'm not paying for the phone calls so I'll keep using it until they realise and turn it off I guess?