Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Officially Brings Voice To Gmail

Posted by samzenpus on from the talk-away dept.

siliconbits writes "Google has finally added voice support to its popular Gmail email service which means that users will soon be able to call landlines and mobiles worldwide for free or for extremely low prices. The announcement was made at a press conference in San Francisco in front of a few selected press members."

179 comments

  1. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now my mom can call me right away to tell me she sent me an email.

    1. Re:Great by AnAdventurer · · Score: 0

      and I thought I was the only one

      --
      6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
    2. Re:Great by dangitman · · Score: 4, Funny

      and I thought I was the only one

      No, I think all of us have had mothers at some stage in our lives.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    3. Re:Great by Kleen13 · · Score: 2, Funny

      and I thought I was the only one

      No, I think all of us have had mothers at some stage in our lives.

      I think he meant AC's mom.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    4. Re:Great by shiftless · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think he meant AC's mom.

      And we've all had her too

    5. Re:Great by HydroPhonic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't that cooler than her shouting down the stairwell?

    6. Re:Great by Guignol · · Score: 1

      hmmmm not till lindemann

    7. Re:Great by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 1

      AC's mom has got it goin' on
      She's all I want and I've waited for so long
      AC, can't you see you're just not the girl for me
      I know it might be wrong but I'm in love with AC's mom

      --
      $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
  2. To remove the annoying phone icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    To remove the annoying phone icon: settings>>chat>>google voice (disable outbound voice calling)

    1. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by musikit · · Score: 1, Funny

      i don't need to worry about that. according to that page it uses flash for rendering video/voice. i removed flash from my browser.

    2. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      That's so kewl!

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    3. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      i removed flash from my browser.

      You have made quite a statement of principle.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by Tacvek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is it just me, or has GMail strayed pretty far from its original purpose.

      It added chat, using Google Talk's XMPP servers.

      It recently added voice/video chat using Google Talk's chat protocols.

      It added that Buzz feature which is a micro-blogging service like twitter. (You can have your twitter posts become buzz posts, but you cannot subscribe to non-gmail user's twitter feeds, so it is not very useful).

      Now it added this talk feature, which is basically a web based VOIP system. You use the GTalk voice chat for in-network talk, this feature for PC to POTS, and optionally use a pre-established Google Voice account for POTS to PC.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    5. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by NemoinSpace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it just me, or has GMail strayed pretty far from its original purpose

      Not if you consider GMail's original purpose was to extend Google's marketing reach. People used to ask - Hasn't Google strayed pretty far from being a search engine?

      pretty much as always, you try and expand market share any way you can, even if you are the 181.4 kg gorilla in the room.

    6. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scroll to the bottom and click the "basic HTML" link! Best webmail I've ever used.

    7. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Steve Jobs?

    8. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by LordAndrewSama · · Score: 1

      Not if you consider Gmail's purpose to be facilitating communication. I think it's getting better. bigger, and clunkier, and I'd rather some features were separated out, but it's still improving as a means of communication.

    9. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      181.4 kg gorilla

      On behalf of the Knights of Standards, Measurements and Practices, I object! What kind of pound unit is 453.5g? Surely not the combined mass of three african swallows!?

      (I suppose your thinking goes something like this:
      1) numerical errrors
      2) ???
      2.995) penny-shaving profit)

    10. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or has GMail strayed pretty far from its original purpose.

      Yes. It was created to be a web interface to a standard SMTP-based email account and should never be altered or updated to take advantage of shifting trends in communication.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    11. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by Sean0michael · · Score: 1

      Well, if you consider how Gmail actually has the potential to be a large part of its Apps for Business, it sure helps that they can now offer the ability to call a real phone from your computer. Plenty of companies that use Apps could also use this to make in-office calls and now calls to customers/vendors/partners in the real world. Selling their Apps perhaps has the best potential for a second stream of revenue aside from advertising, just like how Office is the 2nd stream to Microsoft's Windows OS.

      --
      Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
    12. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by phyrz · · Score: 1

      Also, this move makes a lot of sense considering the upcoming Chrome OS will probably need some sort of VOIP capability.

      --
      Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
    13. Re:To remove the annoying phone icon by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or has Gmail strayed pretty far from its original purpose.

      Yes. It was created to be a web interface to a standard SMTP-based email account and should never be altered or updated to take advantage of shifting trends in communication.

      Did I say that? I don't think so. Gmail was unique and innovative for email from the start. It started out with one of the largest account sizes known, and the tagging system, and a spam filtering system that tends to be more accurate than even the best stand alone systems (although admittedly is less configurable).

      But I always though the chat was weird. First it assumes it is quite common to keep Gmail open in a separate tab or window. While some certainly do, not everybody does, making the chat feature less useful to them. Second, since the text chat of Google Talk has always been pure XMPP, users could use any XMPP (Jabber) client they want, including any of the far nicer (IMHO) stand alone clients. Even web-based XMPP clients from other sites could be used.

      I will however not dispute that Google Talk's and Gmail Chat's ability to log the conversation, and store the logs in with the e-mail is valuable feature. But I don't really see the need to have the ability to make the conversation in Gmail itself.

      Google Buzz just seems worthless. As far as I can tell, you can only see the Buzz status of a person if you are a Gmail user. Furthermore, the Buzz interface only shows the Buzz statuses of users. If it acted as a micro-blogging aggregation, that would be more useful. Similarly, if you could set it up so posting a Buzz status would update external services, that would also be useful, but right now you can only do the reverse.

      If Google wanted Google Voice integration with Gmail, having it archive and search revived text messages would make good sense so you don't need to go to the Google voice site to see them. Similarly, allow the transcripts of recorded/archived calls be searchable from Gmail. That would be a new and useful feature.

      I don't see the value of being able to send and revive phone calls from Gmail. Gizmo5 can already be used with Google Voice, so this new feature does not give additional capabilities to the service. It merely offers the general public a way to use a VOIP with Google Voice, ssince Gizmo5 is not accepting new registrations.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  3. Doesn't quite work for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Entering my mobile phone number and pressing "Call" results in: "We could not complete your call. Please try again."

    Thanks for the new feature, Google.

  4. just another trip to the data mine for google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    no thank you.

    1. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by turbotroll · · Score: 5, Interesting

      no thank you.

      I have been always wondering, why is the public (over)concerned about Google mining and their users' data, but not Yahoo, Skype, Microsoft et al?

    2. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by Gonoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am less concerned about them doing it because there is no secret there. I can be selective about what I do witheir products, or at least aware of what they might have.

      It is big corporations that worry me. Big as Google? Maybe, maybe not but who knows how much info banks have on me. If it is as secure as their business models, I am in deep s**t. I know what Google seems to want to do with my info. Pretty much the same as spammers, but G. seems to be better organised. They are probably better organised than Microsoft etc as well and I still believe/hope that they have more principles. At least Google started with the intention of "do no evil". I have not heard many other companies with that motto.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    3. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of them are apple lovers who now see Google as the enemy no 1 and love to bash them. Of course, they wont have any problem using some other search engine and apps AT ALL.

    4. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe, maybe not but who knows how much info banks have on me.

      Google, Microsoft, Yahoo et. al. are the least of your worries. So-called data aggregators like Choicepoint, for example, are far more of an issue, privacy-wise, because they don't just profile you with the intent to sell advertising and offer advanced free services. Choicepoint collects everything it can about us, in order to sell that information directly to anyone that can pay for it. No need to worry about security breaches (although Choicepoint has had their share of those) bad guys can just buy your personal info on the open market. Supposedly they only sell data to "legitimate" companies, but they got scammed a few years ago: some ne'er-do-wells set up fake companies so that Choicepoint would sell to them. Not that it cost Choicepoint anything, hell, they made money off the sale.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by mjwx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have been always wondering, why is the public (over)concerned about Google mining and their users' data, but not Yahoo, Skype, Microsoft et al?

      Google are honest and open about what they are collecting. Microsft, Yahoo et al. pretend like they dont collect anything thus Google is doing wrong.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I have not heard many other companies with that motto.

      Perhaps because it shouldn't need to be said? Not doing evil is the most basic of human ethics, not something to be proud of. The fact that they use it as a motto actually says a lot - that there is a high possibility of Google naturally being evil, so they have to make efforts keep it in check.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    7. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps because it shouldn't need to be said? Not doing evil is the most basic of human ethics, not something to be proud of.

      Seriously? I would submit just the opposite: DOING evil is the most basic of human instincts. At least, when you define "evil" as "whatever gets me more money/power/sex". NOT doing evil means giving up something that you want, in the name of some "greater good" that, likely as not, won't get you laid. Most days, it's hard to find someone who is willing to even give up the ten feet needed so that I can get off the damned highway. That sort of "evil" is humanity's most enduring feature.

      For a company to even suggest that "do no evil" is a corporate value is amazing. They may not always reach that standard... but heck, most actual people don't even try.

      (Note: there are also theological implications here that I won't get into...)

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    8. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no such thing as a free lunch, but my personal information isn't priceless, either - and I'm willing to trade parts of it for useful and convenient services that Google provides. Why not?

    9. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Seriously? I would submit just the opposite: DOING evil is the most basic of human instincts.

      I never said it was an instinct, I said it was an ethic. Ethics are the exact opposite of instincts.

      For a company to even suggest that "do no evil" is a corporate value is amazing.

      What's so amazing about it? It's pretty normal actually. I don't think any large companies these days don't have statements of ethics.

      They may not always reach that standard... but heck, most actual people don't even try.

      That seems very doubtful. Most people have some kind of moral/ethical framework.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    10. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by ericvids · · Score: 1

      For a company to even suggest that "do no evil" is a corporate value is amazing.

      What's so amazing about it? It's pretty normal actually. I don't think any large companies these days don't have statements of ethics.

      Hold that thought. You just said it's "pretty normal" for a corporation to have a "do no evil" value, yet you just said in your own previous post that it "shouldn't need to be said".

      You're pretty confused. Those statements of ethics that you were talking about are SPECIFICALLY for stating corporate values. Make up your mind -- either it should be said, or not.

      That seems very doubtful. Most people have some kind of moral/ethical framework.

      That comes off to me as particularly naive, and again you are showing your confusion. If this is true, then your other claim is bogus:

      there is a high possibility of Google naturally being evil, so they have to make efforts keep it in check.

      --
      Pet peeve: Profane people propagating perfunctory pedantry.
    11. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by wrook · · Score: 1

      What will really get you is when you realize that the highway is evil.

      I'm glad you defined "evil" for your argument. But I think if you change that definition a little bit it becomes even more interesting. If we define "evil" as "doing anything I don't want you to" all of a sudden we have conflict. Your definition of evil and my definition of evil collide because what I want and what you want don't mix. To put it more simply, you want ten feet so that you can get off the highway, and the guy with the ten feet doesn't want the highway at all. You are both evil. And the only way to "do no evil" (at least with respect to what everyone else wants) is to do nothing at all.

      I think what Google means by "do no evil" is that they won't do what they don't want to do. And as pathetic as it sounds, that is actually a useful motto. Most corporations don't even know what they want, let alone actively try to avoid doing things they don't want. If Google could actually organize themselves in such a way that they have a single set of core values and it is actually acted upon by the staff, then it really, truly would be amazing. I have my doubts though...

    12. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      At least Google started with the intention of "do no evil".

      No, their slogan has always been "Don't be evil". It's subtly different from "Do no evil", especially when it comes to connotations. "Do no evil" -> eastern philosophy, apes holding their mouth, etc. "Don't be evil" -> "Don't become the new Microsoft".

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    13. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Hold that thought. You just said it's "pretty normal" for a corporation to have a "do no evil" value, yet you just said in your own previous post that it "shouldn't need to be said".

      Google has it as a company motto. That's a bit different to the standard practice. Maybe it is said by other companies, but they don't make such a big deal of it.

      You're pretty confused.

      I think you might be the one who is confused if you can't wrap your mind around this.

      That comes off to me as particularly naive, and again you are showing your confusion.

      It's naive to think that people have a moral/ethical framework? If they didn't society just wouldn't work, and we'd all probably be dead by now. So, are you saying that you have no moral/ethical framework? Or that you are an extraordinary person who is unlike most people?

      If this is true, then your other claim is bogus:

      How so? Google might be particularly prone to evil, hence the need to proclaim "do no evil." I don't see how that is in conflict with the idea that most people have a moral/ethical framework. Do you even grasp the basics of my argument?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    14. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We find biological bases for all kinds of actions all the time. We DID find a biological basis for altruism, but we also found that making someone make a "mad face" produces a physical positive feedback response in some individuals. I suggest that doing evil and doing good are both instinctual.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a terrible definition of "evil". What you want is a system where getting more money/power/sex in a constructive way through voluntary co-operation, respecting the rights of others is rewarded and getting more money/power/sex in a destructive way through fraud, the use of force or infringing the rights of others is punished.

      Lets call it: capitalism.

    16. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Make that Lexis-Nexis. They bought out Choicepoint a while back and now basically corner the market. Why that deal wasn't subject to an antitrust probe... well I don't know. Yes, there are "other" data mining services out there, but almost all of them get their source data from Choicepoint/Lexis-Nexis owned databases.

    17. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      At least, when you define "evil" as "whatever gets me more money/power/sex".

      I think that's a good definition of being selfish, not evil. Evil is more like using power over others to intentionally hurt them.

      The pricks on the highway who won't let you pass---they're not doing it to piss you off, they're doing it to arrive one second faster. True, it makes no difference to you, you're just as stuck, but I think it makes a big difference in the ethical calculations that they're not intending to be mean, you're just unluckily holding the short end of a stick. Also, is your one second somehow worth more than their one second? Well, I think it is if the system otherwise causes you to get deadlocked, but... it's starting to get slightly non-trivial here...

      Anyways, the point: selfish != evil.

    18. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Make that Lexis-Nexis. They bought out Choicepoint a while back and now basically corner the market.

      I did not know that. And you're right, that should have been subject to some Federal scrutiny. Not hard to guess why it wasn't.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    19. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What you want is a system where getting more money/power/sex in a constructive way through voluntary co-operation, respecting the rights of others is rewarded"

      Otherwise known as "good".

      "getting more money/power/sex in a destructive way through fraud, the use of force or infringing the rights of others is punished"

      Otherwise known as "evil"

    20. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      I did not know that. And you're right, that should have been subject to some Federal scrutiny. Not hard to guess why it wasn't.

      You should see the data they've collected about members of Congress and the FTC!

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    21. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Seriously? I would submit just the opposite: DOING evil is the most basic of human instincts. At least, when you define "evil" as "whatever gets me more money/power/sex". NOT doing evil means giving up something that you want

      No, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, being evil is not doing as one wishes to do, it is asking others to do as one wishes to do.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:just another trip to the data mine for google by ericvids · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is said by other companies, but they don't make such a big deal of it.

      I disagree. I actually think it's standard practice for companies, especially the big ones, to make a big deal of their values.

      Microsoft, for example, makes a big deal enough to have a verbose code of values documented online. http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/Compliance/Buscond/Default.aspx#values

      Other companies do the same, but only internally. Google just condenses it to "Don't be evil", but if you look at their code of conduct http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html, the format is very similar to Microsoft's. They do have differences, but they have striking similarities:

      Microsoft: Integrity and Honesty
      Google: Integrity, Responsiveness (see how they define it)

      Microsoft: Open and respectful with others
      Google: Respect Each Other

      Microsoft: Accountable for commitments, results, and quality
      Google: Ensure financial integrity and responsibility

      Those are pretty close to what we define as "good" ethically, in terms of a company's relationship with its customers.

      Also, to be quite pedantic, "Don't Be Evil" is Google's INFORMAL company motto, and the place it appears in their website is in the same place Microsoft puts theirs in their website: in their investors relations pages. That's pretty standard.

      So, back to you. Can you substantiate your claim that Google makes a big deal of their motto any more than other companies? Editorials from the free press not included.

      It's naive to think that people have a moral/ethical framework?

      No, but you are attacking a straw man. Remember when you contradicted this statement?

      They may not always reach that standard... but heck, most actual people don't even try.

      That seems very doubtful. Most people have some kind of moral/ethical framework.

      You were using, as an argument, that "most actual people don't even try [to do good]" is very doubtful because people have a moral/ethical framework. You could only be right IF people are always consistent with their moral/ethical framework -- that MOST people ALWAYS do the right thing BECAUSE they have morals/ethics. That's what makes your argument naive.

      Furthermore...

      If this is true, then your other claim is bogus:

      How so? Google might be particularly prone to evil, hence the need to proclaim "do no evil."

      ... you AGAIN show your confusion. If people HAVE a moral/ethical framework and they always follow through with it (the hidden assumption that you've always been making) then your statement that "Google MUST be evil because they proclaim this as their moral/ethical framework" is contradictory with your own beliefs, because under your own assumption, since Google has a moral/ethical framework, Google must be good.

      I'm not saying that Google might NOT be particularly prone to evil.

      I'm saying that your belief:

      "most people have a moral/ethical framework, therefore people MUST be good at some level"

      contradicts with your other belief:

      "Google has a moral/ethical framework, therefore Google MUST be bad at some level"

      That shows that either you have a double standard with particular malice against Google (at worst), or simply confused (at best). I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt.

      --
      Pet peeve: Profane people propagating perfunctory pedantry.
  5. YAY by bobstreo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and it works in Linux with just a plugin and a browser restart

    Now where's the android client?

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

      The install is for Debian-based distributions. Anyone tried on RHEL?

    2. Re:YAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can download google voice app for Android from the Android Market. It integrates nicely with the dialer, letting you specify rules for when the call should be routed via Google Voice. On my phone I have it configured to dial all international numbers through GV.

    3. Re:YAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should be it works in Ubuntu with just a plugin and browser restart. In other distros, you're in for a world of hurt, especially if you don't have PulseAudio.

    4. Re:YAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'd be awesome if it worked in more than just a single country.

    5. Re:YAY by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      I do this as well but there are some caveats. As is more-or-less typical of Android and Google products, it works great, except when it doesn't.

      Specifically, I call a number in Thailand at least once a day. The country code is 66. In my contacts the number is listed as +66###... which is how it must be to get routed through Google Voice. If you want to dial directly through your carrier, you'd put 011 instead of +, so 01166### (or something like that). Supposedly 011 and + are interchangeable, but that's how the phone parses things.

      Now here's the problem - as I said, in my contacts I entered the numbers as +66, not 01166. Yet if I dial the number, depending on how I enter it (or perhaps randomly, it's hard to tell), by going through the recent calls list, going to the contact, etc., it will start dialing 01166... and not +66. This means Google Voice doesn't catch it, and then that's apparently the wrong format for AT&T as well - which is a good thing, because they'd charge me $1.50 a minute for those calls if I didn't notice :)

      This is perhaps a Nexus One or Android-specific issue and not Google Voice, but it seems to me that if the phone is randomly transposing 011 for + in international numbers, Google Voice should understand this and always work properly the first time.

      Also, recently the in-call volume has been ridiculously low; it used to be fine and now I can barely hear the other end. If they call me (not through Google) it's loud and clear, so it's got to be Google Voice's problem.

      All that said it's hard to complain because it mostly works and is a great service, it's only 3 cents per minute to Thailand and I don't have to go buy phone cards and enter in long pin codes or any of that kind of nonsense, just dial the number directly from my phone.

    6. Re:YAY by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Install a tool called, "alien". Then run, "sudo alien -r google-talkplugin_current_xxxx.deb". You now have an RPM. Or you can do, "sudo alien -t google-talkplugin_current_xxxx.deb", and you now have a tgz archive.

      At this point, I don't know if the plugins actually work.

    7. Re:YAY by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I should have waited before I posted. Seems to work like a charm on my RPM based system.

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

      Just an fyi; I use idphonecard.com because it uses caller id to eliminate the need for pin numbers. You'd just set your contact to dial the access number, pause, and dial the number in Thailand. I use it for Europe all the time, I just add $10 every few months. It might be worth it as a backup.

    9. Re:YAY by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Specifically, I call a number in Thailand at least once a day. The country code is 66. In my contacts the number is listed as +66###... which is how it must be to get routed through Google Voice. If you want to dial directly through your carrier, you'd put 011 instead of +, so 01166### (or something like that).

      No, pretty much any GSM mobile phone will accept numbers in international standard format. You should never need to dial 01166... except on a landline.

      Now here's the problem - as I said, in my contacts I entered the numbers as +66, not 01166. Yet if I dial the number, depending on how I enter it (or perhaps randomly, it's hard to tell), by going through the recent calls list, going to the contact, etc., it will start dialing 01166... and not +66.

      Something is up with either your phone, or AT&T. I call the UK regularly, I have every single phone number in my phone listed in ITU-T format (even the US ones), and I've never had a problem.

      International format numbers also worked consistently on my BlackBerry, my Sony Ericsson, and my old 90s Nokia.

      Do you have Google Voice set up to automatically route your international calls without bringing up the dialog to choose? That feature could be buggy, I don't use it.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    10. Re:YAY by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      Given that this is likely a Google Voice integration into GMail, we'll probably see this in the Google Voice app.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    11. Re:YAY by Optic7 · · Score: 1

      Similar to the AC that responded to your post, I use enjoyprepaid.com for pretty much the same reasons. You can register several phone numbers from where you would call (ex: home, cell, etc) and then it doesn't ask for a pin number when you call from those numbers.

      The prices are very competitive with Google talk, Skype, etc. In fact, I checked and both enjoyprepaid.com and idphonecard.com have lower rates to Thailand than you're currently paying.

  6. Defeats the purpose for me by mmcxii · · Score: 5, Funny

    I send e-mail so I don't have to talk to people. It's the same reason I text.

    1. Re:Defeats the purpose for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Defeats what purpose? Email still works...

    2. Re:Defeats the purpose for me by Meddik · · Score: 1

      I send e-mail so I don't have to talk to people. It's the same reason I text.

      Not sure why this comment was marked Funny. It's absolutely true for me... And I bet a lot of others here.

    3. Re:Defeats the purpose for me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Defeats what purpose? Email still works...

      GP might accidentally press the "voice" button and find out that his 19 year old cheerleader penpal sounds like Barney Rubble.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. encrytion issues by lazycam · · Score: 5, Informative

    Last time I checked Google voice services did not support encryption. Unless they are talking about implementing security measures similar to Skype, I am not interested.

    --
    my mom posts on slashdot.
    1. Re:encrytion issues by tukang · · Score: 4, Informative

      Skype doesn't give you a free phone number and also doesn't allow you to make/recieve calls to landlines for free. Google Voice + Google Call can essentially replace a landline (except for 911) and if they bring this to android you could technically get a phone with only a data plan. I just tried it and it works nicely on linux. They should update the google voice extension so you can receive & make calls w/o needing to have gmail open but I'm sure that will come later. The call quality wasn't always great but overall it's a great addition that unlike buzz & wave is immediately useful to me.

    2. Re:encrytion issues by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How are you going to call landlines and mobiles with encryption? Have you got like 2 friends you've convinced to use it too?

    3. Re:encrytion issues by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Good thinking, Mr. Bond.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    4. Re:encrytion issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Software encryption is for pussies. My friends and I are hardcore, we use ebonics for encryption.
      Fade it or be smoke, bitch.

    5. Re:encrytion issues by bcmm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Skype uses a closed, secret protocol. It may or may not be properly encrypted. There may or may not be intentional backdoors.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    6. Re:encrytion issues by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that Skype doesn't open your communications to third parties (governments for example)?

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    7. Re:encrytion issues by scotty.m · · Score: 1

      The government dept I work for now (and previously) don't allow skype.. wonder why. Just because a protocol is secret, doesn't make it secure.

      --
      Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
      [ST8Z6FR57ABE6A8RE9UF]
    8. Re:encrytion issues by Recovery1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately the Google Voice part only works in the United States. You can still make phone calls out with it to Canada but no incoming calls or any of the features in Google Voice. I has a sad :(

    9. Re:encrytion issues by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Even if they do, how does that invalidate GP's arugment? How is Skype's pseudo encryption worse than Google's no encryption? Most people are not important enough for the government to snoop, but not unimportant enough for some random guy at an internet cafe trying to grab CCNs/passwords/trade secrets from someone on a business trip in a foreign country...

    10. Re:encrytion issues by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Government departments don't allow all sorts of programs that work just fine. Some of our clients are the FCC and the DOJ. Those guys can barely install anything, and it has zero to do with whether or not the software is secure.

    11. Re:encrytion issues by tukang · · Score: 4, Informative

      Might be because skype is p2p based and there is law that bans p2p in certain areas of government because people were unintentionally sharing gov't files. Why your Senator can't Skype

    12. Re:encrytion issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhg my company does a lot of business with the DOJ. They are about 4 years behind in updating one of our products which they use heavily but is now woefully out of date. They can't update because they can't use anything they haven't tested and they can't test anything because it would have to be approved before they could test it.

    13. Re:encrytion issues by LambdaWolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Skype uses a closed, secret protocol. It may or may not be properly encrypted. There may or may not be intentional backdoors.

      Furthermore, even if it is properly encrypted and there are no intentional backdoors, it is unlikely that the implementation is as secure against side-channel attacks as peer-reviewed software would be. In principle, no small, closed team of coders should be expected to be clever enough to catch every possible bug or weakness. Security through obscurity and all that.

      (And just because the last two Slashdot threads I read on the subject had commenters who misunderstood "security through obscurity", let me just head it off now: keeping a password or key secret is not security through obscurity. "No obscurity" means keeping nothing secret except the key—that is, the algorithms, protocols, and source code are all disclosed.)

      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    14. Re:encrytion issues by jschottm · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the VOIP portion, but Google Voice is https only for me. Maybe it's that I have the "always encrypt" option turned on in Gmail, but I thought that was deprecated at this point and they required all connections to be secure.

    15. Re:encrytion issues by JimWise · · Score: 1

      Encryption does not really come in to play for how Google is handling the service. Once the call is set up it is phone-to-phone, it is NOT through either user's computer. You can start the call through your computer, but then it just calls your phone, when you pick up it calls the other person and takes the end user's computer out of the picture. This is VERY nice since you are not tied to your computer. You can have it call your cell or your land line, and if you have a cordless phone you are free to roam around your house/yard while on free/inexpensive long distance calls. It also adds extra perks such as if someone calls your new Google phone number it can ring your home, cell, and office phones simultaneously. The caller doesn't have to worry about figuring out which one to try to call first and if you aren't by that phone try another one of your numbers. It also lets you get a text message and e-mail when someone leaves voice mail, and you can get a text transcription of it or listen to it on-line. Listening to an voice-mail on-line is the only aspect that I guess could involve any sort of encryption.

    16. Re:encrytion issues by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now you need to ask yourself WHY they're giving you these things for free (and if they're going to stay free). It's not free for them.

      I'd rather pay Skype the $4 a month, thanks. Not to mention Google Voice isn't even available.

    17. Re:encrytion issues by General+Newcomb · · Score: 1

      Malvin: I can't believe it, Jim. That girl's standing over there listening and you're telling him about our back doors?

    18. Re:encrytion issues by UnanimousCoward · · Score: 1

      Even if you have a Skype number, you can't configure Skype to show your Skype number in Caller ID whereas I just tried calling via Google Voice does display my Google Voice number. This broadcasting of who I am is more important to me than the encryption issue for everyday use. And, I don't have a handle on Skype's encryption to trust it anyway...

      --
      Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
    19. Re:encrytion issues by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      /me plays Devil's Advocate:

      Just 'cause the crypto's closed-source doesn't mean that it's not lifted in its entirety from peer-reviewed software.

    20. Re:encrytion issues by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's KNOWN there are back doors. Well, at least one. I can't remember which government gave it away, I think it was probably Germany. In any case, it's known that there is a back door, which at the very least government agencies of the alphabet soup kind have access.

    21. Re:encrytion issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would people even bother with this? SIP phone + provider == cheap phone calls. For example, callwithus.com calls are 1 cent per minute to US/Canada. Canada is now @ $0.005/min ($0.30/h). No monthly fees. And if I want a phone number somewhere, I can just buy it with them or someone else if they don't have it.

      Flexibility. That's what SIP gives you.

      Google is giving away voice termination in US/Canada because it is,
          1. cheap
          2. advertising of their service
          3. undercutting competition
          4. they are making money on international calls

      PS. My SIP phones look just like a regular phone. No dependence on some piece of software in a browser. No dependence on Skype proprietary standards either.

    22. Re:encrytion issues by Haymaker · · Score: 1

      if you're in the US, I can throw you an invite if you don't have it.

    23. Re:encrytion issues by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I just hope google phone doesn't do everything ooma does, I just paid like $225 for that :)

    24. Re:encrytion issues by gblfxt · · Score: 1

      yes, your phone calls about your basement dwelling and mother not buying enough snacks is that interesting it needs to be encrypted.....

    25. Re:encrytion issues by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      Erm it says on the download page "free for 2010". I think the implication there is that it might not stay free. It still got my attention since my cell phone has crappy reception in my condo and I am incredibly cheap.

    26. Re:encrytion issues by olden · · Score: 1

      /me continuing that game:
      Just 'cause the crypto's lifted from peer-reviewed software doesn't mean it's used correctly.
      [RC4 is a good stream cipher -- yet WEP is an epic fail]

    27. Re:encrytion issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true. My Skype number shows up in Caller ID when I call out. And I think it now happens automatically when you purchase a SkypeIn number, or whatever it's now called.

    28. Re:encrytion issues by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Judging by Google's track record in that area, I expect Great Britain and Hong Kong to get it in two years, the rest of the world by five.(grumble).

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    29. Re:encrytion issues by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Now you need to ask yourself WHY they're giving you these things for free.... [].... I'd rather pay Skype the $4 a month, thanks. Not to mention Google Voice isn't even available.

      One assumes that you don't use Google Search then? The exact same argument is as relevant in both cases. They're giving it away for free because they believe it makes sense. Google is in the fortunate position to not need immediate payback to justify doing something. Much of the best technology invented revolved around research that had no (or little) practical application at the time.

    30. Re:encrytion issues by Bowdie · · Score: 1

      Mister Potato head, MISTER POTATO HEAD, Back doors are not secret!

      --
      yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
    31. Re:encrytion issues by Freultwah · · Score: 1

      You can't remember and it was "probably" Germany, so it's in any case known and by extension all kinds of government agencies are abusing said hole, the existence of which you, well, "proved". Nice FUD.

    32. Re:encrytion issues by kypper · · Score: 1

      It actually works to/from Canada just great, so long as you signed up while it was still Grand Central.
      I suspect that this will be made available to us in the not so far future...

    33. Re:encrytion issues by Threni · · Score: 1

      There are other things that arne't free for them, but I (and millions of other people) use anyway:

      google search (uses 1 or 2 servers and a few megs of data...)
      gmail (7+gigs of space, accessed via web page, pop3 and exchange server)
      android os
      google earth/maps (including 3rd party data)

      You don't want to use it because you don't understand why it's free? Uh..ok, whatever.

    34. Re:encrytion issues by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but no, I'm not.

    35. Re:encrytion issues by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? Google rakes in cash, immediately, on search. They offer that service specifically because it allows them to show you ads, and collect information about you. The ads are small and unobtrusive and the information is not particularly closely connected to anything in the real world, so of course I use Google search.

      How exactly do you put ads on a phone call unobtrusively? And phone calls ARE connected to some important real world items, such as phone numbers. Deleting cookies is a lot less of a pain than changing my phone number (and those of everyone I called).

    36. Re:encrytion issues by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Search - advertising and recording search terms

      GMail - advertising and indexing your e-mail

      Android - lets them make sure they're the search (see "search") and advertising provider on lots of mobile phones. Also ensures that if Apple decides to go with Bing one day, Google doesn't get locked out. Android also doesn't have much of an incremental cost. Phone calls do.

      Google Earth/Maps - advertising, recording search terms.

      See the pattern? I understand very well why it's free. Do you? Search, Earth/Maps, all fine. Google's ads stay unobtrusive and their monitoring is at least a little isolated from the real world. They get my IP address and that's about it. I don't use GMail because I don't really want Google reading my e-mail and the work stuff has medical confidentiality concerns. I really don't want Google listening to my phone calls either, and how they're going to make ads in phone calls unobtrusive? At the moment they seem happy to piggyback it on GMail so you get the GMail ads, but eventually they're going to want to set it up so it's a dedicated app, on smart phones, for example.

    37. Re:encrytion issues by Threni · · Score: 1

      > I don't use GMail because I don't really want Google reading my e-mail

      Do you use a virus checker or spam blocker on whatever email system you use? Do you believe it works without your mail being `read`?

    38. Re:encrytion issues by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There are spam blockers on some of my accounts, yes. The difference is, that mail isn't being "read" by one of the largest advertising companies the world has ever known.

    39. Re:encrytion issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no incoming calls

      Just set your google voice no. to ring on gtalk. You can then receive calls in the gmail web client.

    40. Re:encrytion issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you hiding that you need encrypted voice?

        And what lengths have you gone to, to test the strength of Skype encryption?

  8. is there a way to use this with a sip client? by Sark666 · · Score: 1

    I doubt it, but I recall something about some voice service google providing using a standard method

    1. Re:is there a way to use this with a sip client? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I dumped the traffic from a test call and I don't see any SIP.

    2. Re:is there a way to use this with a sip client? by willzzz · · Score: 1

      Just did an analysis of the protocol used and apparently google is using the open source XMPP protocol with some SSL/TLS for encryption on the handshake and plain old g.711 RTP as the voice transport. I could decode my voice traffic from a test call as it was unencrypted but some of the handshake/call setup was. The login for the relay (I'm behind NAT) was unencrypted. I did 2 seperate test calls and the login to the relay (relay.l.google.com, replace l with your local google server cluster/cache), is dynamically generated on the fly with a magic cookie for every call so no unless one manages to crack google's algorithm and how it ties to your google account. Google's public implementation info: http://code.google.com/apis/talk/open_communications.html

  9. Spam? by DWMorse · · Score: 4, Funny

    At first, I kinda wondered if Gmail was going to call me and read my email to me.

    That's just what I need. Ring ring... "Greetings. We are pleased to inform you of our new pharmaceutical offerings in your area..."

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    1. Re:Spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there's an Android app that does just that - it reads incoming e-mails out loud. Well, sender's name and subject, only - but that can be embarassing enough, when you forgot to silence your phone and it starts reading out a spam mail in public... "Re: your shipment of viagra", or "vanessa dot whantingmoore at yahoo dot com writes... Re: looking for horny slut"

    2. Re:Spam? by stimpleton · · Score: 1

      and after the recent wireless furore...

      Ring ring... "Greetings. We are pleased to inform you of our new stock of haemorroid cream has just arrived at your local West Field pharmacy, just 400 yards south from your door step. Joes corner store that you will pass on the way is having two-for-one Coke Day."

      --

      In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    3. Re:Spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're nahhhht funny

  10. Mobiles too? by Drakeness · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, if that's the news... I've heard about it some time ago, but I though it was only for internet conversation... You know, the Skype kind... But reading this, I think it's going to be really great =P...

    --
    Drakeness - Python & C Programming
    1. Re:Mobiles too? by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I heard about it too.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  11. It Begins - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been following the next telecommunications giant, Google, for some time. This is the first step in what will probably be a swift journey to the top of the industry for them - and will cause tremendous upset among incumbent carriers. The recent bickering over Net Neutrality will soon come to a head, and all of that dark fiber that Google's been buying over the years will have another fine use. Of course, what they won't tell you is how their advertising machinery (and various domestic and foreign government agencies) will be bugging your phone calls. Their executives have been very candid lately with how proud they are of their ability to build dossiers for everyone on the Internet and how no one escapes the unblinking gaze of Google. An eager public will leap once again into the arms of our corporate Big Brother.

    Needless to say, the creeping spread of Google continues unabated. Bring on the anti-trust suits, and bust them and the incumbent telecommunications companies up in one fell swoop. That's the only reason that I'm eager to see this plan come to fruition, because once they start stepping on the toes of Ma-Bell and the like they'll be impossible to ignore. Meanwhile, the discussion on common carrier status is likely to return. If it all goes well, they'll all be taken down a peg. (Our easements, our rights of way, our subsidies, our cables!) If not, this could culminate some years down the line in a bifurcation of our infrastructure, with Google's advanced but privacy-free networks on one side and the POTS on the other. We'll see.

  12. related, nearly a dupe by jDeepbeep · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also from today on /. Google testing voice calling in GMail

    --
    Reply to That ||
  13. Global? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm curious, are there any limitations on who can sign up for a Gmail account and now have free phone access to the US and Canada? Should I expect to start receiving massive numbers of calls from all over the world from everyone with a gmail account? It was never expensive, but I always suspected that the reason I didn't get dozens of phone calls from the depths of [obscure country X] was because it was too expensive to just go through every phone number in the country and spam them.

  14. Next feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are they going to add next? Faxing?

    1. Re:Next feature? by Recovery1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually that would be a very smart idea. There is still a lot of people out there who have to keep a landline for faxing. While there is services on the internet that already do faxing, you either have to charge a fee for it or put up with advertisements. Plus there is no inbound faxing on them.

      It would be nice to use that Google Voice (which as of writing this is still sadly not available here in Canada) to receive faxes through your phone number and have them pop up as an email with an attachment or something. They already have the infrastructure in place with Google Voice, adding a fax service to it I don't think would be too far of a stretch.

    2. Re:Next feature? by Recovery1 · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. I just got looking around at some of the services and I guess they do have incoming faxes. But it looks like you have to pay for that service too.

    3. Re:Next feature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are people still using fax?!

    4. Re:Next feature? by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      For some of them they have figured out that a $35 fax machine doesn't break as often as the $350 computer their friends are using. Also the employees tend to spend a lot less time faxing porn back and forth.

    5. Re:Next feature? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Faxes. Not like they were 20 years ago.

      Today: Type a letter on computer, print it to the laser/inkjet, go to the fax machine, dial a number send it to the far side.

      Recipient gets the fax, walks over to the scanner or fax machine takes the image, and converts it to PDF, and forwards it by email to boss, who prints it out on the Laser/inkjet.

      A fax, how quaint.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Next feature? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      There is nothing stopping Google from adding it. The T.38 protocol for fax over VoIP has been around for awhile. Plus received faxes can be dumped right into your GMail or Google Voice inbox.

    7. Re:Next feature? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is all very stupid, but sometimes someone demands a faxed copy of a signed document as proof that it was signed before they will send you something, despite the fact that it is no such proof at all.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Next feature? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      I have an efax.com number that is free that I use for incoming faxes (and voice mail for that matter), they get sent to me as email attachments. I recall that they do a good attempt at steering you towards their pay products, but last I looked they still offered the free service. When I look now, I cannot seem to find their incoming free fax products, so maybe they have discontinued that offering.

      j2.com also no longer seems to still offer a free incoming product. Maybe they all figured out they couldn't make much money by setting their price at "free".

       

  15. I can access this from Canada by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm in Canada and this feature is working through Gmail for me, though it could just be a temporary glitch. I also got into voice.google.com immediately after making the first call (it only showed call history, wouldn't let me set up a Google Voice number), but I'm locked out again now.

    1. Re:I can access this from Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they say US and Canada are free with Gmail. But you still can't get a Google Voice call-in number for Canada from Google, at any price (unless you were one of the lucky few grandfathered from GrandCentral). So it's still Skype or MagicJack for us lowly Canucks.

    2. Re:I can access this from Canada by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, they actually say that calling Canada is free, not that calling from Canada is free.

    3. Re:I can access this from Canada by alexo · · Score: 1

      I'm in Canada and this feature is working through Gmail for me, though it could just be a temporary glitch.

      I'm in Canada and I can't see the phone icon anywhere.

    4. Re:I can access this from Canada by benad · · Score: 1

      They're progressively rolling out that feature to all users. I'm in Canada and I've made a few phone calls to my landline in Canada and it works. All calls were free.

  16. Voice Changer Plugin Needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want a built in voice changer with Wookie and Jawa options, the first for marriage topics, the second for hush hush conversations about han shooting first and how well my cocoa butter performs under stress tests.

    1. Re:Voice Changer Plugin Needed! by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      not builtin but... if you google screaming bee voice you should see some software to do VoiceChanging

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  17. AT&T Compaint against Google by PineHall · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Earlier today in "Google testing voice calling in Gmail", u235meltdown brought up a very good point about how this creates a problem for Google defending itself against AT&T who says Google Voice should have Common Carrier status. This destroys Google's arguments.

    1. Re:AT&T Compaint against Google by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Earlier today in "Google testing voice calling in Gmail", u235meltdown brought up a very good point about how this creates a problem for Google defending itself against AT&T who says Google Voice should have Common Carrier status. This destroys Google's arguments.

      Does it? Does Google provide the connectivity?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  18. Direct Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/call-phones-from-gmail.html
    The "IPProPortal" link just generates hits for that site while adding nothing. Slashdot got played.

    So, Google gets to know who you call, their number, and when (in relation to everything else you're doing on Google). In exchange for selling this information about yourself and the person you're calling you get low rates. Or at least lower than using the cell on your desk. Depending on distance called, and your cell deal.

    I guess a lot of people will be fine with that. I'm not keen on how it puts the person called into their system.

  19. Almost, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It works in UBUNTU with just a plugin and a browser restart... millions of Fedora, CentOS, gentoo, etc users are still all S.O.L.

    1. Re:Almost, but not quite... by clem · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Millions? Really?

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    2. Re:Almost, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I just rebooted and tried it in my Gentoo installation. Works perfectly fine.

    3. Re:Almost, but not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works on any x86 machine running a 2.6 kernel made in the last few years, and with a reasonably recent libc. It's only packaged for lolbuntu, but if you're using any other distribution you're theoretically smart enough to figure it out.

  20. 4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet /b/tards will be having a lot of fun now with this new service.

  21. I don't get it -- what's in it for Google? by pedantic+bore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How do they make money off this?

    Is someone going to be softly muttering advertisements in the background during my conversations?

    Will the advertisements change to track the subject of the conversation?

    Is this going to get really creepy, really quickly?

    --
    Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
    1. Re:I don't get it -- what's in it for Google? by dangitman · · Score: 0

      It's Google. They're probably selling your phone calls to the Chinese government.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:I don't get it -- what's in it for Google? by xannik · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think this could help propel their social networking adoption rates as you will need to have a gmail account to sign up. I love the convenience of Buzz as I am a current gmail user, but Facebook obviously has the lion's share of the social networking market. If Google can get more people signed up to Buzz they can deliver more targeted advertisements as they learn more about the habits of their users through social networking. This further increases the value of AdSense and AdMob.

      Also, they serve up ads at the top of gmail itself, not to mention I'm sure they could mine data of users' phone calls. They have great voice-to-text technology for Android that I am sure they could re-purpose for analytical uses. :-)

      --

      Go Illini!!!
    3. Re:I don't get it -- what's in it for Google? by Torontoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They make money by driving people into their product and disrupting other companies. It's awesome really how disruptive Google is to competitors. They're making a larger argument for getting rid of a landline and even in time a voice plan... hell... if wi-fi is available you don't even need a data plan just a tablet or laptop with wifi. Voila - free phone calls and you're even more in love with Google. It's a very disruptive scenario they've sprung on the telcos today. By increasing reliability and acquiring more behaviour from you - they know everything you do in another aspect of your life. It's easy with that info to target you with ads, or sell a connection with you to a company. **prediction** - this will interface with Google streetview some day. You'll be able to simply 'walk' down a street and click on a house or company to call. There goes all phone book / yellow pages cos. Businesses will be buying the virtual real estate on Streetview. GPS - Geolocation - you'll be able to simply ask your phone "Where is the closest (insert store here) and it'll dial that phone number for you.

    4. Re:I don't get it -- what's in it for Google? by zesh · · Score: 1

      Instead of the ringtone you usually hear when you dial someone they could easily replace it with audio ads. Targeted just for you of course.

    5. Re:I don't get it -- what's in it for Google? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      One thing I know is that Google are drooling at the thought of all that realistic voice data. Look at Google Translate: It's become great, but it's still limited by the corpus: The further your sentence gets from the written word on the net, the worse the translation will be.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  22. Great, a new browser plugin. by mad.frog · · Score: 3, Funny

    What, HTML5 isn't good enough? </snark>

  23. When will it be on phones? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    When will this be on android phones? I want a data only plan, no reason to pay for voice minutes.

    1. Re:When will it be on phones? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. Cell carriers know that their voice plans are dead weight now. Very profitable dead weight. Notice how the iPad has a data only plan and the sim cards are disabled so they won't work in a regular phone?

    2. Re:When will it be on phones? by olden · · Score: 1

      For Android, IMHO better options already exist.
      Get Sipdroid + any SIP provider like CallWithUs, justvoip (+ IPKall as DID) etc.
      Look Ma, calls over 3G to many countries for free or cheaper than big-brother-Google.

    3. Re:When will it be on phones? by nebular · · Score: 1

      Hmm, none of those options had free calls to Canada and the USA...

      Seems Google would still be cheaper

    4. Re:When will it be on phones? by metamatic · · Score: 1

      It already is on Android phones. Download Google Voice from Android Market.

      It's the thing that has persuaded me that I can drop my land line...

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  24. Per minute cost range by JimWise · · Score: 1

    I checked out the range of costs charged by this service. It was nice to see that Canada was free, the UK, Japan and most of Europe just $0.02/min. I was surprised that Thuraya was 18.5 times as expensive as remote, war-torn Afghanistan though ($4.99/min vs $0.27/min.) They must be suffering under horrendous political and geographical situations there. I had never heard of Thuraya before, had to look it up on Google.

    1. Re:Per minute cost range by shiftless · · Score: 1

      *Every* carrier charges something like $4.99/min to Afghanistan. Thuraya just happens to be one of the crappier ones. (Don't use their satellite phones--they SUCK.) Afghanistan actually has surprisingly good cell phone coverage, but few or no landlines due to its ruggedness.

  25. Next steps? by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 4, Funny

    2011: You wake to find Gmail techs installing a camera in your bedroom so people you have no intention of contacting again can watch you sleep.

    2014: Gmail now pays for a plane ticket for a relative/friend who you haven't talked to in a while to visit (based on how often you chat to them).

    2030: Gmail clones a soulmate for you (based on conversations you've had using it's service), and delivers it to your door.

    1. Re:Next steps? by should_be_linear · · Score: 1

      Wow, cool, hopefully everything will go as planned!

      --
      839*929
    2. Re:Next steps? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      2030: Gmail clones a soulmate for you (based on conversations you've had using it's service), and delivers it to your door.

      Oh, awesome, I should be just about done with my midlife crisis by then. :)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    3. Re:Next steps? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      2011: You wake to find Gmail techs installing a camera in your bedroom so people you have no intention of contacting again can watch you sleep.

      No no, they're not sharing that data with anyone. They are only using it, completely anonymized, to build a model of sleeping patterns.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    4. Re:Next steps? by VShael · · Score: 1

      2045 : Everyone's soulmate is given Order 66, and the human race is extinguished in 66 minutes.

      2046 : There is peace in the Middle East.

    5. Re:Next steps? by mayberry42 · · Score: 1

      2030: Gmail clones a soulmate for you (based on conversations you've had using it's service), and delivers it to your door.

      Now my parents finally have the answer to their decade-old question "when will you ever get a girlfriend?"

    6. Re:Next steps? by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 1

      Wait, why does it take a year for peace to happen? If there are no humans to have a war, there is no war. Unless they finish the terminator drones by then

    7. Re:Next steps? by VShael · · Score: 1

      It was a joke. Have you never heard the refrain "Maybe next year, in Jerusalem" ?

      Maybe next year there will be peace.

      Only when all are dead, then, the "maybe next year" will come true.

  26. I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Receiver: "Can you fax me that invoice? The number is (555)555-5555"
    Sender: "I have a fax machine but no fax line."
    Receiver: "It's ok, you can set one up for free through google."
    --hours later--
    Sender: "I'm having trouble faxing this, can you log into my google account and do it for me?"
    Receiver: "Sure, just email me the PDF and i'll print and fax it to myself."
    Sender: "Thanks! So glad we have all this technology"

  27. Limited to 50 SMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems to be limited to 50 free outgoing sms messages.

    1. Re:Limited to 50 SMS by Mizery+De+Aria · · Score: 0

      However, it also seems to reset back to 50 when you receive a response back.

      --
      If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
  28. I know a cheaper option by freakxx · · Score: 1

    www.callwithus.com

    It's 4 times cheaper to my country:
          Google rate: US$0.06/min
          Callwithus rate: US$0.015/min

    I didn't thoroughly compare the rates to all other countries one-by-one, but it looks relatively cheaper than what Google has to offers.

  29. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll stick with Skype thank you.

  30. Speech-mining? by Paul+Bristow · · Score: 1

    Great. Now I'll get spam and google ads related to the content of my last few phone calls.

    [calls Mum]

    [next email]

    "Hello, would you like a reminder service to tell you to make more phone calls?"

    ...hmm... not for me

    --
    - Paul
  31. Do you suppose by sking · · Score: 1

    that this is why Google purchased Gizmo?

    --
    The AntiJoey
  32. mobiles in europe by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    have skype already . Have wifi already . Have maps which know local businesses already .so why are they doing this?they are building a network effect

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:mobiles in europe by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      Google's an American company, and while my mobile phone has all those things as well, that is because... it's a Google Nexus One. A very small percentage of phones, even smartphones, in the US will do everything that the parent suggested, although it seems that they aren't fully aware of what they can do these days.

      Anyway Google does make money off of me from Google Voice, because I make international calls and they charge for international calls.

  33. Canada? by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

    We use phones up here too you know

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    1. Re:Canada? by benad · · Score: 1

      I'm in Canada, and there's a "Call phone" item under the Chat section in Gmail. Installed the plugin, and it works for free for Canadian and US phone numbers. Of course, I don't have a full Google Voice account, but hey free calls are good enough.

  34. Microsoft's answer... by Optic7 · · Score: 1

    The University that I work for had a bidding/trial/evaluation process for choosing a system to outsource student email. Google and Microsoft were the choices. They both came out and gave public presentations.

    Microsoft's "pitch" included saying that they're an IT company, and then asking if we wanted our email handled by an IT company or by an advertising company.

    In other words, they implied two things: that they are better at running an email system than Google, and that they are not interested in data mining your emails.

  35. How else do you find your cell phone? by zaba · · Score: 1

    I haven't had a POTS line in a couple of years, and used this today to find where the hell I placed my cell phone in my house. Probably saved me 30 minutes of my life. I really don't see using it for much more than that, though...

  36. Unable to accept calls? by krulwich · · Score: 1

    When receiving an incoming call to my GV number, when I accept the call on the GMAIL web browser screen, I hear the prompt "press 1 to accept, 2 to send to voicemail" and I don't have a numeric keypad to type 1. Any way to turn this off completely and accept the call as soon as I accept the call in GMAIL talk?