Slashdot Mirror


What Does Google Get Out of Voice?

itwbennett writes "Assuming Google isn't offering Voice out of the goodness of their hearts, what's the payoff? One likely, if cynical, possibility is that Google Voice is 'just another feeder for their vast database on you,' writes Kevin Purdy in a recent blog post. Or maybe Google just wants to get better at speech-to-text, and collecting your voice messages is just one big voice-mining effort. 'They already did it with GOOG-411, the free phone directory service that mined voices across the country to launch Google Voice's current transcription offering,' says Purdy. For its part, Google says it has no plans to monetize Voice beyond the international calling and number porting fees that it currently charges."

87 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Do No Net Evil by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nonsense. The reals reason is that Google maintains a very complex evil portfolio that they need to offset with good assets by the end of the fiscal year. Capitalism and the free market has turned their "do no evil" slogan into "do no net evil." As a result, Google Voice generates rare and coveted benidons that are traded on the moral exchange. One benidon offsets one hedon as a base unit at the end of the year. While Microsoft and Apple executives Scrooge McDuck in their massive hedon reserves and show them off to investors, every year Google struggles more and more to finish in the white.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Do No Net Evil by Compaqt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did you just use "Scrooge McDuck" as a verb?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    2. Re:Do No Net Evil by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He did, didn't he. And we all know that verbing weirds language!

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    3. Re:Do No Net Evil by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      You just diarrheared my brain with that.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Do No Net Evil by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      I just accidentally my underwear.

    5. Re:Do No Net Evil by game+kid · · Score: 2

      You can say he Work Smarter, Not Hardered that comment.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    6. Re:Do No Net Evil by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      Nazingifying? :)

    7. Re:Do No Net Evil by mcavic · · Score: 1

      Capitalism and the free market has turned their "do no evil" slogan into "do no net evil."

      Absolutely true. After all, we're all evil. Who's the least evil among us?

    8. Re:Do No Net Evil by Fusselwurm · · Score: 1

      Fiscal year my ass... they're just afraid of Santa's LONC (List Of Naughty Companies)

    9. Re:Do No Net Evil by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the reason is simple. To keep you on Google and thinking of Google.

      Google makes most of its money off of adds. Mostly from Google Search. The Google Search has competitors, Bing, Yahoo, etc... Offering services such as voice gmail, maps, etc... tries to make sure that your computing needs is close to Google. So if you are going to search there is a search box close by just ready for you to use it, and get related adds visible.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Do No Net Evil by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      verbing weirds language

      –Bill Watterson

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    11. Re:Do No Net Evil by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I knew I picked it up ages ago somewhere, but I had no idea about the source.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    12. Re:Do No Net Evil by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's always been a favorite of mine. Along with...ehh, practically every other strip he or Gary Larson ever made... :)

      Oh, and one more for the road.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    13. Re:Do No Net Evil by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Nice one! At least I am not the only one out there who likes some good linguistic punchline :D

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    14. Re:Do No Net Evil by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Google has always been "do no net evil". Their company motto has always been "Don't BE evil", not "do no evil". "do no evil" is a losing proposition from the get go, as many time in life we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. "Don't be evil" is far more pragmatic, and just as noble, but does pretty much translate to "do no net evil".

  2. android phones? by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For reasons which are far beyond this post, I can't port my old phone number to my new phone provider, but I CAN port my old number to the mighty GOOG.
    Basically its a forwarding service pointing my old number to my android phone.

    In the long run, if "phone service" went away and all I had was data service, and I ran google voice over that data service, I'd be OK with that. If I had ubiquitous wifi and could connect to google voice over that, I wouldn't even need "phone" service.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:android phones? by darjen · · Score: 2

      I transferred my old number to my iPad's data only connection. I still get the occasional Google voice email from someone trying to call that number, so I know if anyone was trying to reach me. I am now on prepay only for voice and iPad for 3g, which is a lot cheaper than Verizon's voice + data smartphone plan.

  3. What it gets? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    All your phone numbers, those of your wife, your kids, your mistress and all your relatives and business contacts.

    1. Re:What it gets? by Binkleyz · · Score: 3, Informative

      All your phone numbers are belong to us.

    2. Re:What it gets? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Probably - they've already given it to everyone else...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:What it gets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it breaks unexpectedly, your contacts are backed up.

    4. Re:What it gets? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Having seen what was going on with facebook, they naturally assumed that people would happily give them that through google plus.

  4. A Less Cynical Possiblity by geoffrobinson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They get the ability to really improve voice recognition software, the ability to search on audio, etc.

    Just a guess.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:A Less Cynical Possiblity by garcia · · Score: 1

      The recognition is getting better as the voicemail transcripts I receive in e-mail are no longer totally unreadable. While they're rarely correct, I can now get a basic idea of the call before listening to it.

      I'd be willing to bet that while they're getting a lot of "evil" information out of the data they are collecting, they are also providing a somewhat useful service to those who use their services.

    2. Re:A Less Cynical Possiblity by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      That was my instinct as well. They also own YouTube, which opens up some possibilities: Obviously, great video searching options but also automatic video transcripts and things like that. Once they have a transcript they can run their other algorithms over it and relate it more strongly to other sources, both video and non-video sources. If there's a G+ account to tie into, you also have all of that information.

      Better search. Better recommendations. Better profiles. Better advertising placement. It's a big win for Google, and it's not like audio/video postings are going anywhere anytime soon. Now that so many people have a smartphone in their pocket, those video recordings are only getting more common.

    3. Re:A Less Cynical Possiblity by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...plus they get what they get from GMail: advertising dollars.

      Yes, I'm aware that the Android apps don't show apps. But the websites do. And the chances are that if you use GV, you use the websites as well as the apps. I read* half my voicemails in GMail.

      I'm kind of baffled by this article to be honest. In any other case, a site funded by ads on the web front-end, and payments for premium services, would not generate this kind of stupid question! But if it's GOOGLE, OMG! They must be up to something!

      * For those who think that's an error, which will compromise of 90% of Slashdotters based upon my experience, please find out what Google Voice is. Go to voice.google.com and take a look. Yes, I read my voicemails.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:A Less Cynical Possiblity by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm aware that the Android apps don't show apps

      Uh, don't show ads, obviously. Sorry. Not enough coffee this morning.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:A Less Cynical Possiblity by Binkleyz · · Score: 1

      Speaking as one that utilizes their int'l calling options, I can't imagine how they're making a raft of money off of me when I'm only paying $.02/min for calls to France..

    6. Re:A Less Cynical Possiblity by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This. Indeed, the most convenience I get from GV is being able to read the messages in my voicemail without having to dial in etc - which is much easier to do on the go. And when I'm at my desktop, I'll usually do that via the (very GMail-like) web interface, rather than the phone.

  5. I do not know and do not care! by bogaboga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Assuming Google isn't offering Voice out of the goodness of their hearts, what's the payoff?

    Sincerely folks, I do not know or care. What matters to me is how I am going to be able to make something for myself in a climate of strangling student, home, medical and personal debts. All these in a climate of an uncertain job market, which is likely to get worse before getting better.

    What Google of any other company is doing with their cash is of no consequence to me sincerely.

    Does what Google do with its services matter to you? If so, how?

    1. Re:I do not know and do not care! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      Does what Google do with its services matter to you? If so, how?

      Has it occurred to you that the interest rates on those strangling loans could be computed using data gathered by companies like Google? That you might receive a less favorable rate because of who your contacts are or what you say to them?

      Privacy and empowerment go hand-in-hand; when you lose privacy, the people you lost it to gain power over you.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:I do not know and do not care! by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      It could not because that would be an egregious violation of Google's privacy policy. You may not like what Google does with your information, but they have always been upfront about it.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:I do not know and do not care! by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      It could not because that would be an egregious violation of Google's privacy policy. You may not like what Google does with your information, but they have always been upfront about it.

      Remember, Google is about collecting information. With Voice, they have lots of statistics - who called you, who left you a voice mail, your phone numbers. I'm betting those who use Google Voice never see one of those "You need to add your mobile phone number to your Google account" intersitials (with a tiny line under it that basically says "I do not want to add my number"). Sure, ostensibly it's to "protect your account", but it's a real number.

      And it's NOT a violation of Google's policy if an advertiser came up to Google and said "I'd like to show this ad to people in ZZZ city with area code YYY." Given Google owns the best AND worst ad network out there...

      And given employers and other people are using Google and Facebook and G+ and all other social networks, it could very well be Google aggregating the data and either making it public or selling it. I'm sure Google has a similar thing going on like Facebook where companies can pay extra $$$ to get unfettered access to the data as part of "we may share your data with interested third parties".

    4. Re:I do not know and do not care! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      So if they can charge more for insuring dipshits does that mean that responsible young adults can get preferred rates?
      If so. How exactly is it a bad thing for companies to charge people who are a higher risk more money?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    5. Re:I do not know and do not care! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sure Google has a similar thing going on like Facebook where companies can pay extra $$$ to get unfettered access to the data as part of "we may share your data with interested third parties".

      No they absolutely do not: "We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google" (Ref: http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/). There is no "we may share your data with third-parties" clause in the Google privacy policy, unlike almost every other company out there. Read the links carefully and you will see that Google has one of the best privacy policies (at least in terms on sharing information with third parties). Also note that some of these companies have way more personal and sensitive information about you that Google.

      Disclaimers:
            * I work at Google
            * These are entirely my own views and opinions and do not represent Google's in any way.

    6. Re:I do not know and do not care! by 246o1 · · Score: 1

      I'm betting those who use Google Voice never see one of those "You need to add your mobile phone number to your Google account" intersitials (with a tiny line under it that basically says "I do not want to add my number"). Sure, ostensibly it's to "protect your account", but it's a real number.

      I use Google Voice and still get that interstitial.

      --
      Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
    7. Re:I do not know and do not care! by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      I'm betting those who use Google Voice never see one of those "You need to add your mobile phone number to your Google account" intersitials (with a tiny line under it that basically says "I do not want to add my number").

      You're wrong.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    8. Re:I do not know and do not care! by swillden · · Score: 1

      it could very well be Google aggregating the data and either making it public or selling it. I'm sure Google has a similar thing going on like Facebook where companies can pay extra $$$ to get unfettered access to the data as part of "we may share your data with interested third parties".

      Google's privacy policy specifically states that Google does not share your information with third parties.

      (Disclaimer: I'm a Google employee, but an engineer not an attorney, and this comment is based on my layman's reading of the privacy policy. It's also my honest understanding of what the policy means and intends.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:I do not know and do not care! by lee1026 · · Score: 1

      By the same token, I also might get a more favorable rate. Informations asymmetries allow people with higher default risks to blend in with people with lower default risks, and forces rates for everyone to go up. More efficient markets are good for all of us.

  6. Language Barrier by jduhls · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Speech recognition is essential in order to achieve the inevitable pre-singularity destruction of the language barrier. They want to monetize that destruction. They are a business. Duh.

  7. Google: World's biggest statistical service by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Author hits the nail on the head. A lot of people debate whether Google is a search company or an ad company, truth is it's neither, it's the world's biggest statical service, gathering up and analyzing massive amounts of statistics(for good or for ill). Their main way of monetizing that right now is ads, but they are already starting to branch out. For instance you can pay to have Google's pattern matching technology mine through your own company's data to find trends, classify things etc. And I imagine that Google is looking towards other markets beyond ads, and for that they will need lots and lots of data, your data....

    1. Re:Google: World's biggest statistical service by AdrianKemp · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, you really can't get away with saying that.

      Google made 96% of it's money in 2011 from ads. They are an ad company.

      They are an ad company that is trying new things and maybe making an honest effort to diversify, but they are an ad company.

      http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html

    2. Re:Google: World's biggest statistical service by Bigby · · Score: 1

      95% of the revenue they get from ads (which make up 96% percent of its revenue) is their ability to use statistics to best target the users they are delivering ads to.

      So Google is a data mining company, not an ad company. Ads are just their currently outlet at leveraging the data they have collected and will collect in the future.

      In a few years, when Google knows you are hungry (based on patterns) and knows you are next to a restaurant you loved a year ago and it suggests that you go there without you even asking the phone, then you'll know that it is about the data mining.

      They could leverage the data into other spaces outside advertising. Like catching a terrorist, criminal activity, monitoring competition for clients, credit rating, etc... It doesn't have to all be about selling you something.

    3. Re:Google: World's biggest statistical service by Calos · · Score: 1

      What would be interesting is if Google partnered with the more traditional actuaries - i.e., insurance companies.

      They are usually way ahead of everyone else when it comes to statistical patterns and risk predictions. Imagine what they could do with a whole new arena of data to analyze.

      --
      I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
    4. Re:Google: World's biggest statistical service by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Which is a more relevant way of pinning a word on a company: naming them after their most profitable product, or naming them based on how they create their products?

    5. Re:Google: World's biggest statistical service by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      You'll note that if you actually look at Google's products that doesn't change anything.

      Android: a way to gather user data and a platform for ad delivery

      Gmail: an ad delivery vector

      Google Voice: a (marginally successful) attempt to extend the gmail snooping to phone calls

      Google Earth: a method for determining where you are at any given time to ensure they can give you the best local ads

      Whatever way you slice it, Google is an advertising company

    6. Re:Google: World's biggest statistical service by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Google Health, Bookmarks, Checkout, Contacts, Code, Docs, Latitude, Wallet, Play, Notebook, Reader, Sites...

      Not all of Google's offerings have ads, nor did their initial product have ads. What Google started as, and creates most of their products through, is finding, processing, and compiling data. It's the common factor from search to AI driven cars. Most of Google's products make no sense for an advertising company and most ad companies don't even have consumer facing web services. They make perfect sense for the development of search algorithms though.

      A chemical company might make most of its money through a specific chemical (e.g. bleach), but it's not too difficult for them to switch if the need arises. Likewise, Google makes most of its money through ads, but their real asset is a vast collection of data and the programming talent to use it. They do ads, but that's an application of their core business. IMHO, that's why they now dominate internet advertising despite not being the first to market. Being overspecialized makes you vulnerable.

    7. Re:Google: World's biggest statistical service by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      Latitude is maps/earth, and is even MORE about learning your location

      Wallet/Checkout is about knowing your purchasing habits

      Notebook, Reader, Sites, Contacts, Bookmarks, Docs and Play all fall under the same "we know what you like to do" data collection.

      Yes, they have a few fringe products that are not directly aimed at finding what you do because they give the employees 20% do-whatever-you-like time.

      You seem to really want Google not to be an ad company despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

      For the record, insurance companies could easily become ad companies... Does that make calling them insurance companies wrong? No, you're just being dense.

    8. Re:Google: World's biggest statistical service by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Pegging Google as an ad company is overly simplistic. It doesn't allow you to adequately predict the range of Google's actions, thus it's not a useful classification (beyond rhetoric). It also leaves you vulnerable if they ever pose a threat, since targeted advertising is far less sinister than many of the things they could do.

      Collecting "we know what you like to do" data is much more consistent with their mission statement and allocation of resources than with the actions of any ad company. Look at a company like Doubleclick if you're having trouble seeing the difference. You cannot reduce their actions to a simple "they want to sell our eyeballs to advertisers", for if that were true, they'd be one of the most random and inefficient companies of all time, which their track record disagrees with.

    9. Re:Google: World's biggest statistical service by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      Google bought double-click, idiot.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/technology/14DoubleClick.html

      Thanks for playing.

    10. Re:Google: World's biggest statistical service by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Yes, they no longer exist. That does not preclude comparing the current market leader to the past market leader. Google and Doubleclick differ substantially, hence why Google dominated and bought them despite being a latecomer to the market.

      "Playing"? Sorry, I was trying to have an intellectual discussion, which is cooperative, not competitive. It's not "winning" if you give nothing but assertions and steadily decline in civility until people stop talking to you.

    11. Re:Google: World's biggest statistical service by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      You have done absolutely nothing that could be considered intelligent. I'll give you discussion though.

  8. The same reason they do everything they do by concealment · · Score: 2

    To take over the world, of course. Wouldn't you?

  9. It's a sunk cost by Jimmy_B · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Google had won a wireless spectrum auction (they didn't), then Google Voice could've been the core of Google's competition with the telco network. Pieces of it are probably still useful for Android, and it could give them negotiating leverage with carriers. So it could've been really important, but didn't turn out that way. The thing with software products, though, is that almost all of the cost is in the initial creation; once created, they cost very little to keep around. So Google keeps Voice running, because it costs them little and turning it off would be very disruptive.

    1. Re:It's a sunk cost by pz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Google had won a wireless spectrum auction (they didn't), then Google Voice could've been the core of Google's competition with the telco network.

      Very insightful. However, there's nothing to say that Google won't obtain wireless spectrum through some other means, like a future auction, or outright acquisition of an extant carrier. Given that AT&T and T-Mobile USA were slow dancing before the FTC turned on the lights, one can readily assume either one might be approachable with an offer. Google has tons of cash on hand, too.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    2. Re:It's a sunk cost by spacepimp · · Score: 2

      Google didn't necessarily want to win the Spectrum auction. They wanted the open access rules that got passed through the FCC. Google won that auction by not winning (sort of Zen). However Verizon who did win, is definitely toeing the line of the agreements.

    3. Re:It's a sunk cost by delinear · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the US isn't the only market where they could get a foot in the door. Auctioning of the spectrum is currently a hot topic here in the UK with current and potential new carriers all squabbling about who should be first in line. Given the smaller size of the market and the comparatively large size of business done via mobile/internet (largest ecommerce spend per head in the world) it would be a great proving ground for Google to trial such a service without committing to a larger, logistically more troublesome market right off the bat.

    4. Re:It's a sunk cost by V-similitude · · Score: 1

      A lot of their other semi-experimental projects that have been shut down recently (Wave, for example) were also sunk costs, but they were shut down nonetheless, in a bid to streamline Google's services. So no, sunk cost alone is not enough justification anymore for Google to continue a project. There must be something else about GVoice to justify its continued existence. (Especially because it's almost certainly more costly maintenance-wise than something like Wave.)

    5. Re:It's a sunk cost by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > If Google had won a wireless spectrum auction (they
      > didn't),

      You're confusing the kids, if you're not confused yourself! That's not so.

      It's a known, discussed, written, reported, contemporaneous fact that Google did not want to own spectrum, it wanted to force innovation into wireless.

      If by promising to outbid by _several_ orders of magnitude the stodgy telcos, the let's-hoard-the-spectrum-and-do-the-same-old-thing telecoms' old guard they _inadvertently_spoiled the usual telco land grab, and prevented corporate welfare, and forced a _valuable_ if not priceless resource ("they're not making any more of it") to be valued, to be priced (esteemed), to be reinvented for NEW uses, then Google was HAPPY to BID AND NOT WIN SPECTRUM.

      Google did not want to be a telecom, nor a manufacturing company, they wanted the telecom lunatics not to increase the size of their asylum. That was their gambit. Didn't you know that? Hasn't your reading come across that fact yet?

      That is why when Google bought Motorola Mobility everyone was so taken aback! They need the patent armor, obviously! but it was still a shock to onlookers.

      > then Google Voice could've been the core of Google's
      > competition with the telco network

      No-no. See above. The wonderful to come and behold will be, what will Google do with MM? Will it innovate out of the box? Out-do, -fox Apple by using their Goog-411 / GVoice chops---finally? (BTW how the hell did Siri go past them when they had so much voice data, algorithmic, software expertise, and skill?! FOR YEARS and in VAST DATA QUANTITIES. I should be offered a job at Google, they need a real strategic thinker, planner.)

  10. Re:Voice mining is everything. by Calos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Also, when you install Google Voice, it asks you whether you want to turn on Personalized Voice Recognition,

    With you so far...

    so that Google can pick your voice out of a mess of voices.

    [citation needed]

    I personally have seen nothing that indicates this is why Google asks you to do this, and no evidence of it. Do you have any evidence?

    It could be that this might also be somewhat useful in that regard, but the most obvious and most likely use is that it will make your voice transcription more accurate. It will learn your quirks and how to deal with you accent.

    My Asian and Indian coworkers can't use Siri, and most have stopped trying out of frustration. It can't understand their accent, and doesn't seem to get any better over time. That is the most obvious reason why Google would want to do this.

    --
    I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
  11. Re:Voice mining is everything. by Analog+Penguin · · Score: 2

    Google Voice is a call forwarding/routing and voicemail service, so it's doubtful that it will ever become a Siri competitor. Perhaps you're thinking of Google Voice Actions?

  12. They made money off me by twistedcubic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I paid $10 on Google Voice for calling a relative in the Middle East. However, I've paid $0 in ten years of using Google's other servces. Don't underestimate the price of calling non-western countries.

    1. Re:They made money off me by b0bby · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I have an Obi110 & use their international calling too. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good and for the cost it's great.

  13. Free phone calls by fleebait · · Score: 1

    Maybe they like the free phone calls with the customers footing the bill

  14. Re:Voice mining is everything. by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking about?

    It was bad enough when the critics insisted that Google Voice was some VoIP service, and you now think it's a voice command system?

    Google Voice is a really cool voicemail, call screening, redirection, and discounted international calls service. The only speech recognition it does is a transcription service for incoming voicemails (so you can read them rather than listen to them.) The transcriptions are rarely anything close to perfect, but usually good enough to get the gist.

    It's not VoIP (although it's integrated quite nicely with Google Talk so it can be _part_ of a VoIP system if you want), it's not voice commands, it's a pretty unique and, in my view (disclaimer: I own ONE share of GOOG) awesome enhancement to your phone system.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  15. Re:Voice mining is everything. by jdgeorge · · Score: 2

    Siri doesn't seem to work as well as it used to, according to Steve Wozniak. However, that seems to be more related to the results it provides than understanding voices (not counting the well-documented issues related to various non-US accents in English)

    However, I don't think improving voice recognition is the only driver. I suspect Voice does the following:
    1. Keeps people in Google
    2. Increases the value proposition for Android with carriers who let you use Google Voice as your phone #
    3. Broadens the suite of offerings for its business users

  16. Google == (1984 for profit) by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    Google is collecting data on us in so many ways. The good thing is that they are in it for advertising dollars and don't care about personally tying us to our habits. Google wants to understand our connections, interactions, and preferences in a way that maximizes our value as a target market for someone else's product. When an advertiser wants to target a very tight demographic, Google wants to be able to produce the maximum number of near-perfect matches. Even more than that, they want to make sure that those ads go in front of not just the people who match, but the people who match AND act on such information.

    In a way, Google is an anti-corporation in they they do take the long view of value. They're willing to give you free GV service for years, on the hunch that someone will eventually want to sell you something, and you'll be just the right person to buy it. When advertisers find out that their Google ads have a 10 or 20 or 100% better rate on the dollar because Google can find them just the right consumers, they'll keep coming back.

    Voice recognition is coming of age, and it would cost an immense amount of money to collect and categorize the myriad of languages and dialects of the world. Not only does Google not have to set up satellite offices everywhere to collect data, the study participants are giving Google their time for free. Even one better - it's real, conversational speech. Google isn't getting some idealized, white room version of speech, they're getting what's actually out there in the wild.

    The more Google understands, the better Google can profile you. Google won't just know what you were looking for last week, they'll be able to anticipate what you will need next week, next month, or next year. By understading and correlating buzz (little "b"), they could predict movements in people, in industries, in commodities, in governments. Those last ones start straying out of the "don't be evil" territory.

    As long as Google stays corporate and focused on advertising, we're in great shape. As odd as it sounds, I think the world would be a much better place if the only ads I saw were for things I wanted or needed (then again, I don't have ED...). If Google were to get into commodities or market prediction, or involved in personal witch hunts, things could go down hill pretty quickly.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Google == (1984 for profit) by swillden · · Score: 1

      When an advertiser wants to target a very tight demographic, Google wants to be able to produce the maximum number of near-perfect matches.

      It's a step beyond that, actually. Generally, advertisers don't even get much say in who their ads are presented to; it's on Google to figure out for a given ad who is likely to click on it, based not so much on traditional notions of demographic segmentation as on what Google's algorithms have learned about both the ad and the users.

      (Disclaimer: I word for Google, but not on ads, so the above is just my very high-level understanding/guess of how the real-time ad auction works. I could be wrong.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  17. Re:Voice mining is everything. by JD-1027 · · Score: 1, Informative

    You are selling Google Voice a bit short. After a fuming incident with ATT and my land line, I cancelled my ATT service completely and installed this:
    http://obihai.com/googlevoice.html

    Using all of my previously installed phones, this device turned Google Voice into VOIP. It has been working flawlessly for a few months now to send and receive calls. I got the satisfaction of cancelling with ATT, saving a $30 per month bill, all for a 1 time fee of $50.

    This was one of those "See what technology can do when not being impeded by greed" moments. It was a breath of fresh air.

  18. Simple: videoconferencing by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

    Think about it. Google offers a lot of messaging offerings. Google Voice is the voice portion of videoconferencing. The software also supports the video part. If Google wants to offer an integrated messaging system (e-mail, IM, voice/audio, videoconference) to corporate customers, Google Voice plays a central part. And then there's Android: Google Voice is their version of the many "wireless calling" features on cel phones that let you make/receive phone calls using local wireless connectivity instead of the cel network (useful inside downtown office buildings where cel reception's poor).

    Google Voice is one of those products that on it's own isn't particularly sellable, but once you have it you can build a lot of other things that are.

  19. Google costs a so low by nipslan · · Score: 1

    They provide practically no support. People have text messages and phantom calls that repeat over and over again. It's not meant for business use. Imagine sending a single text message and having it repeat forever and all you can do is send in little support form emails which they confirm they will not contact you back unless they want to. I know it happens because I have been receiving the same txt message over and over again for months now, with no resolution in sight.

    1. Re:Google costs a so low by TuringCheck · · Score: 1

      I know that you got frustrated by the SMS issue but having it repeat "forever" (that is, 20-30 times) has nothing to do with Google. It can occasionally happen with a regular text message sent from one phone to another in the network of the same operator. Some Femtocells appear to cause the bug - that not being an excuse for the mobile operators and their vendors.

  20. As long as I continue to get free VoIP... by bryansj · · Score: 1

    I don't care what the reasons are as long as my Obi 110 keeps giving me free VoIP using Google Voice. I have my Obi hooked into my home phone line so every phone in the house can use it to make and receive calls just like the landline service that I cancelled. It works great and helps me keep our mobile minutes on the minimum plan.

  21. Re:They have already said early on by delinear · · Score: 1

    Did you not just answer your own question before you asked it? The reason it's being given away is because your participation is valuable to them. Sure, it might go away at some point, but it's doubtful it will just be turned off without warning. On the other hand solving speech to text is not a trivial thing, especially considering language is constantly evolving, if they're deriving benefit from being able to gather this data then it's not something they'll suddenly stop gaining benefit from in the near future.

  22. Re:Voice mining is everything. by hobarrera · · Score: 1

    Install? I never installed anything to use it; what are you talking about?

  23. If it were another company by thereitis · · Score: 1

    If it were another company, I'd say building a subscriber base and selling out to a big company later on. But this is Google - they are the big company. :)

  24. Re:Voice mining is everything. by Calos · · Score: 1

    Probably a few points of confusion here. One being what it is that you are referring to. Voice recognition, not the Google Voice app, I assume?

    First: looking back, I didn't digest the GP's post well enough. I have no idea if installing Google Voice prompts you to use the personalized voice recognition. I'm not sure why it would, either. Someone else would have to clarify this point, as I have not installed Google Voice or set up a number with them.

    However, voice-related parts of the OS - voice search, voice commands, etc. - does have the option to use personalized recognition. I'm not sure whether this installs anything or not, and whether it does may be different from Android 2.x to 3.x to 4.x. I just enabled it on my ICS phone, and it doesn't install anything, just notifies be that enabling it causes my voice data to be stored and associated with my account (which should be obvious).

    Third, I wonder if what the GP is confusing with the personalized voice recognition is actually the Text-To-Speech (TTS) package, which if I remember correctly only a neutered version exists by default in the OS, but can be "upgraded" for free if the user finds it useful or an app suggests it (Vlingo come to mind). This, of course, would have nothing to do with recognition of your voice, but could make some sense for Google Voice.

    --
    I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
  25. Re:Voice mining is everything. by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

    OK - I'm curious - why *ONE* share of GOOG ?

  26. Info by CimmerianX · · Score: 2

    It gets information on you. How else do you think Google makes its money.

    It knows who you are.
    Google Pay = your credit cards
    Google voice = Your phone numbers, all who call you and all you call.
    GMail = all your mail is indexed and attachments scanned
    Apps = All your docs and data
    contacts = huge DB that is easily crossed referenced
    android phone = gps location, data usage, etc..

    Just add all that to the searches, calendar items, name it.

    It's a 1 stop shop for all things info about you. The more info they have, the more valuable it becomes.

    All they need is a google connected toilet and refrigerator to complete the picture

  27. Re:Voice mining is everything. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
    I'm not selling it short, I said you can combine Google Voice with Google Talk to make a VoIP system, it's just GV itself is not a VoIP system.

    I have an Asterisk 1.8 server set up that routes outgoing International calls via Google Talk, outgoing office calls via Google Talk, and incoming Google Talk calls to my office line. Obviously as they're linked, the outgoing CLI is my Google Voice number, and calls to my GV number result in my office phone ringing. But it's Google Talk doing the grunt work, not GV.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  28. GrandCentral by RR · · Score: 1

    Google Voice was originally a startup named GrandCentral, and it was invented to fill a personal need for a phone number that is independent of the phone carriers. Presumably, that need still exists.

    --
    Have a nice time.
  29. Re:Voice mining is everything. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    Because they're effing expensive!

    I'd buy more long term, but Google doesn't pay dividends, and I usually only invest in dividend stocks. But I like Google.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  30. Re:Voice mining is everything. by mathfeel · · Score: 2

    My Asian and Indian coworkers can't use Siri, and most have stopped trying out of frustration. It can't understand their accent, and doesn't seem to get any better over time. That is the most obvious reason why Google would want to do this.

    I second this. On my android phone (Samsung Epic 4G), go to the language setting for voice-recognition. The list of supported language and ascent is long and includes both Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese. FYI, there is no Indian, but there is "English (Indian)". Sure, full sentence recognition and semantic matching is not up to Siri's par in well spoken English as far as I can tell, but it works well enough for my parents, who can not really use a computer to input Chinese. Now, It is not clear to me if GV is responsible for their non-English recognition, but I wouldn't be surprised. I am also not sure if iPhone4(s) can do this, but I suspect that if it can, some of my more fanboyish friends would be jumping up and down to show me, who due to my hate of iTunes, refuses to use most hardware from Apple since iPod1.

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
  31. Re:Reciprocal compensation, maybe by Whuffo · · Score: 1

    This is the first time I've seen Anonymous Coward be the only one who gave good information. It's the call termination fees that they're collecting that makes it a very profitable operation.

    With multiple phone companies, a flaw was found in the way phone service was billed. Big call centers could locate in small communities; they might have a few outgoing lines that they paid for, and they'd receive millions of inbound calls. The small town phone company would have to build enough capacity for those millions of calls but could only charge for the small number of physical lines in their service area.

    The solution was call termination fees; the originating phone company pays a small fee to the destination phone company. It's just a fraction of a cent, but if there's a large number of inbound calls it can add up. This solved the imbalance in the phone system - and created an opportunity for VOIP gateways and services like Grand Central / Google Voice.

    When you call one of those numbers, they terminate your call and pocket the fee. Then they ship your call out on the internet as a VOIP call. Whenever you see some service offering a free incoming phone number - it's being paid for by the call termination fees.

  32. Re:forgot to count externalities by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    If we move to VoIP, the likely result is that the USF will be applied to broadband service. There's nothing wrong with that.

    In a case where people are buying Internet access and phone service, VoIP can be a cost saving. That said, I think the best argument for VoIP is that it's a considerably more powerful service than POTS without the high price of ISDN, not that it's a cheap way to rid yourself of your home phone service.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  33. Re:Voice mining is everything. by davewoods · · Score: 1
    Indeed, they are mixing up Google Voice and the "Google Voice Actions" (As my phone calls it), Google Voice only does Speech-To-Text solely for the transcription of voicemails, and "Google Voice Actions" is used to input voice commands. "Google Voice Actions" is basically Siri for Android.

    What you suggested in a previous post:

    it will make your voice transcription more accurate.

    This is entirely accurate, it simply helps your phone know what you are speaking. I (Apparently) have some kind of accent, which makes it difficult for voice commands to work correctly (or speak-through menu systems when I call customer service lines), training your phone to know your voice just makes it easier to use.

  34. Re:Voice mining is everything. by davewoods · · Score: 1
    I glanced through the list of languages. Lo and behold, at the very very bottom...

    Pig Latin

    It works fantastically, and is super awesome.