Slashdot Mirror
Google Officially Brings Voice To Gmail
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."
Now my mom can call me right away to tell me she sent me an email.
To remove the annoying phone icon: settings>>chat>>google voice (disable outbound voice calling)
and it works in Linux with just a plugin and a browser restart
Now where's the android client?
I send e-mail so I don't have to talk to people. It's the same reason I text.
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.
I doubt it, but I recall something about some voice service google providing using a standard method
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?
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
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?
Also from today on /.
Google testing voice calling in GMail
Reply to That ||
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.
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.
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.
Millions? Really?
Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
What, HTML5 isn't good enough? </snark>
When will this be on android phones? I want a data only plan, no reason to pay for voice minutes.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Great. Now I'll get spam and google ads related to the content of my last few phone calls.
...hmm... not for me
[calls Mum]
[next email]
"Hello, would you like a reminder service to tell you to make more phone calls?"
- Paul
that this is why Google purchased Gizmo?
The AntiJoey
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 comes off to me as particularly naive, and again you are showing your confusion. If this is true, then your other claim is bogus:
Pet peeve: Profane people propagating perfunctory pedantry.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
We use phones up here too you know
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
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.'"
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
No, but you are attacking a straw man. Remember when you contradicted this statement?
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...
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.
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...
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".
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?