First Google Voice App Hits the App Store

silverpig writes "The first Google Voice app has hit the app store, and it's called GV Connect. Providing a front end to the Google Voice service, GV Connect allows users of devices running Apple iOS platform to have a native app with which to interact with Google Voice. What will be interesting to note is the order that these apps are approved in. I know Sean Kovacs was first out with GV Mobile back before Apple banned Google Voice, and while he is in the approval pipeline, this other app has some first mover advantage. I wonder what it means when Google gets their app officially approved, as surely it'll be free."

Comments

Fail

[Kickboy12]

No Push Notifications = Fail
Basically just a front-end for the web interface. Not worth the money.

Re:Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

In terms of software obviously having an open platform is way better.

The carriers certainly agree, and they love the fact that Android is open, because it allows them to maintain control of the device and lock users to their own services!

Yay for open source: maintaining the "wireless carriers fuck over their customers" status quo. What a triumph of the noble ideals of FOSS.

If all you can say is "Android is open," as an improvement over iOS, then it's not an improvement, because for the vast majority of people, it's just as locked down as an iPhone. For about .001% of the phone-buying market, it's "open". For the rest, it's simply a tool the carriers will use to control the customers.

Re:Fail

[stephanruby]

And many devices are difficult to even run an unlocked copy of Android

Even with a locked Android phone, I can still do things that an iPhone user couldn't possibly dream of doing because his phone is so locked down. And besides, not all Android phones are like that, some get rooted right away.

on which defeats the entire benefit of having the source.

Not if you're a developer, if you're doing anything complex, having access to the source can significantly cut down your development time.

And comparable Android devices are no cheaper, and often are even more expensive, than an iDevice.

And for good reason, superior hardware is expensive. For instance, Steve Jobs was given the chance to make the iPhone 4 with a Super-AMOLED screen, a bigger screen, and with a GPU three times faster. He just chose not to have those. Now, the Android devices, that have superior hardware, are definitely more expensive. That's certainly true enough, but you should only blame Steve Jobs for skimping on hardware.

I'm looking for a good Android tablet to develop on but there Google seems to be unsure if they want to push Android or Chrome OS.

To develop on?? Developing what? Right now, I do not know of any good tablets that are good for development purposes. In any case, your statement is true enough about Google not wanting to push Android on tablets yet, but don't think it's because of Chrome OS. Chrome OS can only run on netbooks/tablets that require a lot of power, active cooling, and plenty of swap memory space. And Android is just the opposite, it uses passive cooling, less power, and has no swap memory. In other words, Chrome OS and Android are **not** interchangeable. It would be like somebody comparing the OS on an iPad with the OS of a Mac Book Pro. Each requires a very different architecture and a very different way of programming. And neither architecture is going away anytime soon.

I'm not talking supporting USB and SD, which are anti-features IMO

And what do you think of having a phone with a replaceable battery, is that an anti-feature too?

Obviously they haven't a lot of experience with the nice way Google makes it difficult to hack around on other devices they sell such as the Google Search Appliances (which I have).

Are you kidding me? The Google Search Appliance was never directed at people who could roll their own solution. If they could roll their own solution, why even bother with an expensive time-limited Enterprise-level appliance anyway?

Re:Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

"And for good reason, superior hardware is expensive. For instance, Steve Jobs was given the chance to make the iPhone 4 with a Super-AMOLED screen, a bigger screen, and with a GPU three times faster."

You know, I can understand if you complain about one of the actual disadvantages in an iPhone 4, but you're making shit up at this point. Super-AMOLED is fail, and even Samsung is moving away from it now. As for a bigger screen, how big do you want? I think some of the 5" devices are a little bit big. I'd rather not go back to wearing a beltclip from 1996 for my phone, thanks. If that works for you, that's great --- but it's not a coincidence that nearly all other phones on the planet are smaller than that. And which phone has a 3x better GPU? I'm genuinely curious. What benchmarks?

I'm not even going to bother breaking down your ChromeOS v. Android comparison. Do you even understand basic computer technology? Your introduction of active/passive cooling into the argument is so ridiculous that it's mind-boggling.

Re:A Better Google Story

[wmbetts]

wtf is going on with people pretending slashdot comments are twitter now?

Re:*Apple App Store

[socsoc]

There is no other "app store" worth mentioning. You are speaking of "Android Market"

Re:*Apple App Store

[rickyb]

Probably has something to do with the fact that it's the only one with "App Store" it its name. Notice that "App Store" is capitalized?

Re:*Apple App Store

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice that "App Store" is capitalized?

So is "First", "Google", "Voice", "App", and "Hits".

This is kind of a nitpicky who-gives-a-crap thing, but I agree. I initially thought they were talking about the Android Market too and was like..uh, yeah, we've had that for like a year an a half...

Re:*Apple App Store

[Americano]

What about Cydia?

Like the man said... "There is no other app store worth mentioning."