Google Hangouts Gets Google Voice Integration And Free VoIP Calls

sfcrazy writes Google will integrate Voice and Hangouts with the launch of its redesigned Hangouts apps for Android and iOS, as well as on the web. Amit Fulay, Product Manager at Google says, "Starting today you can make voice calls from Hangouts on Android, iOS and the web. It's free to call other Hangouts users, it's free to call numbers in the U.S. and Canada, and the international rates are really low. So keeping in touch is easier and more affordable than ever."

Comments

Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[i kan reed]

So... doesn't that mean that yet another useful google service is trying to be shoved into their one size fits all social network people have repeatedly and widely rejected?

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[WilliamGeorge]

Not on the app side, so far as I can tell (and yes, I use the Hangouts app on my Android phone). I've not yet downloaded this new version, but have been looking forward to it for a while since I had been using Google Voice for voicemail and text messaging, but had to use Hangouts for texts with pictures attached or group texting. Hopefully this brings it all into one app :)

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Ichijo]

This is actually quite useful if you're on WiFi or have more data than minutes remaining on your plan. I'm on T-Mobile's $30/month unlimited data + 100 minutes talk plan, so if Google's VoIP works as well as Skype, I'll be making most of my calls from Hangouts.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what all those unlimited rate plans worry about. Not sure why google waited this long.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[beakerMeep]

No, it can be used with or without plus.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hangouts is not Google+

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[damnbunni]

Serious question: How? Whenever I try to access it through Chrome, the only option I get is 'Join Google+!'

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually quite useful if you're on WiFi or have more data than minutes remaining on your plan. I'm on T-Mobile's $30/month unlimited data + 100 minutes talk plan, so if Google's VoIP works as well as Skype, I'll be making most of my calls from Hangouts.

Last week, I was reading the description of the Google Voice app, and found this:

When using Google Voice for Android, both domestic and international calls are places through a US-based Google Voice access number, and will use the standard minutes from your cell phone plan.

Does anyone know if this will be true with the new Hangouts? Are there any other options, now that XMPP is gone?

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[PopeRatzo]

The Google Voice thing has been a godsend for my wife calling her mom in Belgrade. It's really cheap, easy to use and beats messing around with the sketchy long-distance cards you can buy in liquor stores. It also has some nice features for voice mail and when I want to give out a number that is not my home number, but will ring at home. Yes, I still have a landline in the house, because I'm old and wear an onion on my belt.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

The hangouts app on my phone works without a google+ account, though it sometimes tries to cajole me into "upgrading" to google+. I've also continued to be able to chat with hangouts users via my Pidgin client using xmpp (same settings as previously with google talk).

I've honestly never desired nor tried accessing it from a browser.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[nine-times]

Well Hangouts has its own app on mobile devices. It's accessible from gmail. You can get a chrome extension that makes it act more like its own stand-alone app.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Assuming G.729-level of compression, or ~8kb/second, 100 minutes of voice calls would consume ~48kb of your data plan bandwidth. Next to nothing, really.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[i kan reed]

Maybe these replies are all very android centric? I don't know.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[mrchaotica]

This! I've actually been using Google Voice with VoIP and that exact T-Mobile plan since last fall. Google Voice + Talkatone (via the XMPP access) worked great until Google disabled it back in the spring, and Google Voice + CSipSimple + a cheap VoIP provider has worked somewhat less well since then. (I wish Google hadn't left people like me in the lurch, and had delayed disabling the API until this new Hangouts functionality was ready, but it's a free service so what are you gonna do...) Hangouts 2.3 isn't showing up in the Play Store for me yet, but I'm excited to see if it works at least as well as Talkatone did.

(However, I'll be keeping my third-party VoIP plan too, for now, since a) I prepaid for a year of service and b) I need it for my ObiHai ATA anyway.)

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming G.729-level of compression, or ~8kb/second, 100 minutes of voice calls would consume ~48kb of your data plan bandwidth. Next to nothing, really.

100*60*8=48,000kb

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[rogoshen1]

"left in the lurch" exactly -- i had recommended the obitalk line of VOIP devices to friends and family since they worked with google voice. =/

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Pardon me, you are correct. I meant mb, not kb.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[beakerMeep]

Sorry, I may have spoken too soon there. Certain features of hangouts look like they still require plus, if you are not on an Apps (business) account. But they seem to have almost completely phased this out. In general they seem to have halted the major push for plus. I'd like to think they fired* the head of plus partly because of the failure of the push and the backlash of the real name, and youtube stuff...but I don't know why he "left" ( http://recode.net/2014/04/24/e... ). Anyways, here's what i could find on how to use hangouts:

https://productforums.google.c...
https://support.google.com/plu...
https://support.google.com/a/a...

Here's how to use it without plus:
https://support.google.com/han...

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Just to clarify - the iOS hangouts app had VoIP => POTS capabilities before this. I think the Android app is catching up.

Calls to US POTS lines are free. I haven't looked at SkypeOut in a while, but that may be an advantage. No per-call charge, no monthly fee, just free. International calls are decently cheap.

I've used the Hangouts VoIP capabilities a lot. I was on vacation internationally, and I made a phone call to a US phone line over WiFi, no long distance charges.

Also, I have TMobile. I have a dead spot around my house. All the shiny shiny metal shiny at my work office makes a nice Faraday Cage - our corporate account is Verizon and they had to install an antenna interior to the building - and it makes a nice dead spot at work. Most of my outgoing calls in either place tend to be WiFI, either Hangouts or Audio-Only FaceTime as appropriate. Of course the TMobile Wifi calling on iOS 8 will reduce the need for this shuffle significantly.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[peragrin]

is it only to US POTS lines? what happens if the end user is a VOIP user? What happens if the end user switches?

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

In short, Hangouts will not use your call minutes. It does use data, so may eat up your data plan if you're not on Wifi. It's a fairly efficient protocol, so you may not notice the hit to your data cap.

Wow, even "in short" is too long....

Longer explanation:

Google Voice and Hangouts are two separate things stuck together, with a little bit of GooglePlus paste. It makes things a bit confusing, since they both do "voice and text communication".

Google Voice was a purchased product, Grand Central. Grand Central grew up before smartphones and the cell plans back then were very different than we know today. As such, it's very phone number centric, and there are features to optimize costs based on rules that are no longer current, so the features make less sense today.

Think Grand Central/Google Voice as "product for geeks to do cool things for dumbphones" It did for phones what every programmer wants to do always; it created an abstraction layer, or in English, a virtual manipulable phone number. For incoming calls, that meant: trying any of possible multiple "real" phones to find you, call screening, and voicemail. For outgoing calls, it allowed calls from any of your "real" phones to look like it came from your virtual (this was clunky, oy!) and also helped with long distance - you called a "local" number and typically got better rates than from your phone company. Also, when you made a call, you were calling "cell" numbers out, back when carriers price differentiated on that. Or you could have outgoing calls look originate by a call to YOUR phone, from your virtual number. This helped when you could get the "5 friends I talk to for free" or whatever plans. All of this kind of clunky and confusing. I juggled all this, because it was worth it for me to have a personal virtual number mapped to my work phone, and then had only one device to carry.

For Google Voice, to make an outbound call on a smartphone, you'd go into the Google Voice app, tell it to call some number. Google Voice would contact Google servers, and (depending on settings) Google would call you and make the outbound call, or you would dial out (to yet another virtual number, hosted at Google). THIS IS WHERE THE VOICE MINUTES YOU READ ABOUT CAME FROM. All these calls used cell minutes, either inbound or outbound.

Now, Hangouts was invented as a Skype competitor. To really compete, it needed to be your messaging app. SMS? Sure, lets bake that in, and tightly integrate with both SMS and Google Plus, two very different beasts. What could possibly go wrong? Skype out? Well, we can do that. Lets have data only, VoIP dialing to POTS lines, and lets use the Google Voice number.

So, now my phone has a Google Voice app and a Google Hangouts app. Both can make calls out, in different ways, looking like the same number. Both can make SMS out. Google Voice has SMS as data out, but incoming can come in as "true" SMS as well. How can that be confusing? Oh, and Incoming SMS for "classic" Google Voice came from a "virtual Google phone number" not from your friend, so you could text back to the virtual number and they'd get from your Google Voice number. But.. incoming calls always came from their real number, unless you configured it to come from *your* virtual number... As I write this out I marvel at how I kept this in my head straight for so long. My Phone Book is littered with "GVoice" entries, the virtual numbers that every contact you get an SMS from or dial out to gets mapped by Google. Confused yet?

So, Google Voice still does the normal phone line juggle, so uses cell minutes (this is what you asked about). Google Hangouts uses VoIP, probably using WebRTC. It's a new protocol, and last time i checked, most VoIP apps (including Asterisk) haven't been able to connect with it. On iOS/iPhone, outgoing calls on Hangouts are VoIP only, no audio minutes. Incoming calls are through normal cell service. And all of this can change without notice. Confused? :)

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[jcfandino]

I use the hangouts app and it doesn't allow me to send pictures because I don't have a google plus account.
I wouldn't be suprised if the Voice features were restricted as well.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

when i make a call from www.google.com/voice it performs that callback process to my virtual google phone number, then places the call to the number i specified. if i make a call from the hangouts extension, or from mail.google.com by pressing the phone icon on the left side, does the call still appear to come from my virtual google phone number?

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[pspahn]

I've been using Voice since the beginning and it is now my primary (well, only) number.

Cell phones might be handy, but someone I'm with always has one if there is something urgent (this has happened maybe twice in a few years). People (including my luddite father) ask me, "how do you stay in touch if you don't have a cell phone?" Well, it's actually pretty easy. I just do what everyone did before cell phones. I have a number. If you call it and I answer, great. If I don't answer, leave a message or a text and I'll get back to you.

This is usually the part where someone says, "You don't have kids, do you?" I don't, but I fail to see the pressing need for a cell phone just because you have children.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[JackieBrown]

Can you link me to that plan? Mine is the opposite but i would prefer yours

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[onix]

"Just to clarify - the iOS hangouts app had VoIP => POTS capabilities before this. I think the Android app is catching up."

Thank you for this. I was wondering what exactly was new for iPhone users. I installed Voice on my iPhone 5 before it was deprecated. And fortunately, it was needed to show incoming. Hangouts on the iOS has never shown me incoming, except as of this change only two days before when I for the first time I received a call on Hangouts.

UPDATE:

Also I just checked (within the last 5 mins and after my last check about 1 day before) and both Google Voice and Google Hangouts have updates. Google Voice on iOS is at version 1.6.0 (the last version 1.5.0 came out in Sept 2013) and Hangouts is at version 2.2.0

I'm wondering exactly what's happening here... I guess I still remained perplexed.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's on this page, scroll down about 60% or search for "Wal-Mart". You'll need a prepaid SIM card, about $10, I think. I don't know if you can transfer your number from a regular plan to a prepaid plan.

Keep in mind that you'll lose data roaming, so you will only be able to use T-Mobile towers. In cities this isn't a problem, but in rural areas it will be more difficult to use data than if you're on the other plans.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Espectr0]

that's about 25% of a standard (250MB) data plan in Venezuela.
Still, i can call family in the US with wifi. I previously had to use either skype or hangouts for ios.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is usually the part where someone says, "You don't have kids, do you?" I don't, but I fail to see the pressing need for a cell phone just because you have children.

Because if you have kids, you're supposed to answer your phone right away while you're driving, having lunch with somebody, at a cashier, performing open heart surgery, etc. What's wrong with you?

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they charge you for the transport layer protocol stuff in your data plan? I assume so? Because for compressed codecs like G729/AMR/EVRC sent as 20 millisecond RTP packets often used for SIP/VoIP these RTP+UDP headers are rather bigger than the actual voice data. And G729 is not awesome quality, hopefully the trend will be more towards 16KHZ sampled wideband codecs.

You are also underestimating a voice call bandwidth by about half. You are assuming perfect DTX/silence suppression by the non-talking party, a perfect half duplex conversation. Not often the case, as bad/absent silence suppression or a noisy background can be a problem...

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

note that this is kilobits, not bytes...

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[schnell]

This is usually the part where someone says, "You don't have kids, do you?" I don't, but I fail to see the pressing need for a cell phone just because you have children.

Umm, yeah, that's because you don't have children.

WRT kids, you want a cell phone for:

• Your kids' school/nanny/day care to call you about an emergency, even if you are home, at work, or in transit
• Your child to tell you that their after school activity/field trip/lesson/sports practice/whatever ended 30 minutes early or an hour late and they need to be picked up
• For older teenagers, giving them their own (locked down) cellphone so that you can track their location in case of an emergency

It's clear that you don't have a living situation where having a smartphone is of any advantage - such as apps that can provide directions, show the best route through rush hour traffic, show mass transit times/schedules, book restaurant reservations, receive public safety/AMBER alerts, read the news or talk to friends while mobile is important. That's all well and good.

It's also pretty clear that you don't have the type of job where responding to e-mails or phone calls in a hurry or outside regular hours is important. So, for you, I would agree that a cellphone is superfluous. For many, many other people, having a cellphone (especially smartphone) is very useful. So your mileage may vary. I would just expect that your experience will become less and less common over time.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[fuzznutz]

Plus there are no payphones anywhere anymore. When I was a kid, I always had change so I could call from a payphone. When the school district built the new fancy schmancy high school, they didn't install one single payphone. Band kids and players getting back from away football games late on Friday had to use their cell phones or borrow one from a friend to get picked up.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[vandamme]

You've described me pretty well. I have a cellphone somewhere, but I have to remember to charge it every couple weeks.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Same here.
Im not sure what hangouts got.

Google voice looks like an icon and UI facelift, zero in the functionality department. The biggie disappointment, no improvement to MMS support.
Know one thing i found? Multiple recipient SMS is really MMS underneath, which means Im screwed on any group texts to my Google Voice number. I've had different treatment of MMS in the same day, I really don't know how they do MMS.

Re: Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading your post, I can only think of one song, by Roberta Flack: "Killing me softly", as you are "signing my life with your words".

I'm still having a problem trying to get Hangouts to send a text message even though the number is not a contact. Also, when I'm trying to send a message to a person who is the NOT a contact, once I start typing a name, google plus brings up every person with the exact same name even though I don't have them personally as a contact! Very frustrating!

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Yeah, i'm reposting...

Though iOS Hangouts had the ability to do Hangouts => POTS lines before, it seems to now be able to go from Hangouts => Hangouts now, using gmail addy/gplus account as a key. Think "Facetime audio". In theory this could be revolutionary, you can make calls without a phone number or even a plan (Wifi phone only) to a big subset of Gmail users (those with hangouts). In practice, this is meh. So many people had this before Hangouts, now it becomes Yet Another Friend Network I Need To Worry About.

It also has the ability to take incoming calls. Not sure how this works... My iPad got some incoming calls before. I didn't bother learning how to turn this off, i just deleted Hangouts off my iPad. Also revolutionary for iPod plus users.. maybe 4 years ago. iPod + Hangouts => WiFi phone. In practice, very "hey, me TOO" at this point.

It also gets a new tone you hear during calling out. The new one is more phone-y (yes, it's a word). Its really the only reason i knew it was an updated app. Very meh on the iOS side.

Re: Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I'm glad somebody else understands. It is hard to explain but you did an excellent job. Kudos.

Re:Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[smithmc]

True, still not very much though when typical data plans are measured in GB, not MB.

Deprecating the telephone system

[MobyDisk]

Many Slashdotters have been saying for years that voice is just another protocol that can run on top of IP. The schism between "phone service" and "data service" is artificial at this point. The only feature it brings right now is that it is standardized. I wonder how long before nobody uses it anymore? I fear a world where I have to install 10 different apps to talk to people. But at the same time, if we can choose some standard protocol then we can get rid of the telephone system entirely.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[ArcadeMan]

What's funny is that Apple is pushing for it so gradually that the carriers still haven't realized what's happening. The sooner they wake up and realize we only need data (and a lot more of it), the better.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[DittoBox]

On most cell/mobile networks, your calls are just run over the data service. Meanwhile you're charged much higher prices for the phone-as-data than data-as-data.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Anonymous Coward]

I fear a world where I have to install 10 different apps to talk to people. But at the same time, if we can choose some standard protocol then we can get rid of the telephone system entirely.
 
  The only feature it brings right now is that it is standardized.
 
  Many Slashdotters have been saying for years that voice is just another protocol that can run on top of IP.
 
Aren't you using some kind of odd circle logic to defeat your own ideas? Why do we need to do anything to the phone system if it's "just another protocol to run on top of IP"? And why for the love of pete would we need to standardize a new protocol to replace an existing standard?
 
I can't speak for others in the states but I already have unlimited domestic long distance on my cell phone. I haven't had a long distance bill on my land line in over a decade... does long distance for domestic calls exist anywhere anymore?
 
I seriously don't know what you're going on about. Give me one reason to replace the existing phone infrastructure with something different if we're already are doing what you claim should be done anyway.
 
Too many people around here seem to be caught up in trying to make people switch or destroy something that already works without the first reason as to why we should do it.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[ChromaticDragon]

That's not entirely correct. Pretty close though...

There's a significant difference between Mobile Backhaul and bona fide VoIP.

Otherwise stated, when you choose a "no-data" plan you're still getting GSM or CDMA from phone to tower. They almost certainly are amalgating things for their purposes to connect things from tower to switch and through their network. That is essentially "data". And it most likely is cheaper. It's certainly more flexible. But that's not quite the same as "over the data service".

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Opportunist]

Haven't realized? Are you kidding?

They fully realized it. But they'd be first admitting to eating babies alive before they'd willingly talk about that. And they'll fight tooth and nail against anything that could come close to merging "phone" and "data". The reason is very simple: Phone IS already data to them. But data they can sell very, very, VERY expensively.

Ponder for a moment how much data a voice call is. Realize just how well it can be compressed.
Ponder for a moment how much you pay per minute for cell plans.
Now take a wild guess how expensive a kb of that data is for you.

Multiply by a few thousand and you come close to the real value of "voice data" to your carrier.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Em Adespoton]

On most cell/mobile networks, your calls are just run over the data service. Meanwhile you're charged much higher prices for the phone-as-data than data-as-data.

To play devil/carrier's advocate, phone-as-data has much tighter legal/QoS restrictions.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[MobyDisk]

Why do we need to do anything to the phone system if it's "just another protocol to run on top of IP"

I misspoke. I meant "voice could be just another protocol that can run on top of IP." Currently it is not implemented as such. One reason to replace the existing phone infrastructure is because it is expensive. You pay more for a voice call than you would pay for the equivalent amount of data. Another is that it has a different, more complex, regulatory framework. It isn't end-to-end encrypted. You can't make phone calls from WiFi when you don't have cellular service.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[ArcadeMan]

Yes of course voice is considerably more profitable to them. But if they were really fighting against the merging of the two, we wouldn't have FaceTime/Audio over 3G/LTE/etc, voice over LTE, etc.

That's what I mean by "haven't realized what's happening". They're collaborating with what's going to be the end of their insane profits.

Then again, knowing them, it's the price of data that will just up to compensate. But how many people will keep paying then? When will those carriers realize that lowering their prices will mean more profits because a lot more people will happily sign up for their services? At this point, cellphones plans are so high that only the upper-middle-class and up can pay for them without caring.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Archfeld]

The 'old' land line phone system was required by regulation/law to be able to handle 75% of the projected load in the event of an emergency. The cell phone networks have NO such limits and routinely fail under a 50% load. Imagine when there are NO LAND LINES and something bad happens in a region...poof no communication at all. If we depend on the corporations to determine that load limit it will be oversold 2 or 3 times to 'maximize' profit and be totally unreliable in the event of an emergency...ie no life-line to 911 or fire/medical

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think how much something costs to consume is directly related to how it much it costs to produce then you're really not been paying attention. The market produces the price based on the willingness to pay. Even if you somehow dumped any need for voice calling on a cell phone tomorrow it isn't going to make your plan any cheaper for a straight cellular plan.
 
Not to get too deep on the subject but subscription services have people by the short hairs today. They're the single most reason most people can't save any amount of real money, they're busy pissing away a significant percentage of their income on things that were free or mostly free 40 years ago. I make more than the average household wage for my part of the nation and I'm spending about 15% of my post-tax wages on subscription services that my grandfather never paid for and about father only paid for about half of them and that's only after the early 80s. Cell phones, data plans, cable TV, netflix.... all these things are paid for with income that the average guy use to use for retirement. No wonder we're always broken.
 
This culture of subscription services keeps money flowing and the government is happy to see it because flowing money means more tax dollars and a better economy. At least better for some.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[rasmusbr]

They're probably hoping that we will finally start using video conversations. And we sort of are.

Once video is the norm they can go on to push for 4k video, then perhaps stereoscopic 4k. This is sure to keep the data flowing and your data plan costs growing or at least remaining stagnant.

The funny part is that video conversations were technically possible in the 1970's, but it didn't catch on for whatever reason. It only really caught on about 5 years ago. I can't think of a consumer product that has taken longer to gain traction.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[nine-times]

the carriers still haven't realized what's happening

About a year ago...2 years ago?... all the major carriers switched their plans over to include unlimited voice and SMS, while charging for data usage. Why do you think they did that?

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Solandri]

While you're mostly correct, voice is more latency-sensitive than regular data. The voice channels used when you make a phone call are designed to minimize that latency, whereas generic data channels do not. Eventually data service will improve to the point this doesn't matter (arguably, LTE already meets that standard). But you can't just broadly say that voice is just data.

Speaking of which, why is this suddenly a big deal now that Apple has announced their new phone has VoLTE? Android handsets supporting it have been available for years (Galaxy S3, S4, S5, Note 3 among them). It's the carriers who have been dragging their feet enabling it. T-mobile is the only one who has openly embraced it. The other carriers have been tepidly testing it out. All it usually takes is a software update.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[tlhIngan]

What's funny is that Apple is pushing for it so gradually that the carriers still haven't realized what's happening. The sooner they wake up and realize we only need data (and a lot more of it), the better.

Carriers have known about it for a LONG time now. Why do you think data rates are so high? Because it's very profitable.

Voice calls used to be expensive because that's all the phone did. But now as people do less of it, they're not only getting cheaper, they're practically unlimited. Including North America wide calling. When texting was using the cell network only, it too was stupidly expensive. But now that people are using IM apps and all that, unlimited texting is super cheap.

And carriers know they can bilk people on data - it makes a LOT of money. And the demand doesn't seem to subside - it just grows. And the plans may grow, but at a slower pace, so when you run out of your "taster" 10MB for free, they'll happily upgrade you to 100MB for $20. Then you'll find you come dangerously close and you'll buy an upgrade to 500MB for $30. and 1GB for $40. And 5GB for $80.

Carriers know what's popular and they know how to milk people for it.

In fact, they know you only need data. They'll just throw in voice and text for free because those are no-profit centers. And it's why carriers like AT&T see you using a smartphone (via IMEI - it encodes the phone manufacturer, model and other data in it so carriers know), they bilk you for a data plan even if you only ever want to use WiFi.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Archangel Michael]

Landlines are going bye-bye, regardless of what regulation/law says about them, because they are too expensive, and too limiting. The regulations that apply to them either have exceeded their usefulness or no longer make sense in a world of Cell service.

And this is the problem with regulations, because once we are beyond the usefulness of them, the regulations remain, and you can't get rid of them. Stale laws and regulations should be cautionary tales of intrusive governance. But rarely are.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Andrio]

Of course they realize it. They realized it years ago, when they got rid of unlimited data.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot, seriously. Go look up the history of Skype.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I fear a world where I have to install 10 different apps to talk to people.

On my wife's phone, she has ways to talk to her folks (international)
Skype Video Call
Skype Audio Call
Skype Messaging
iMessage
FaceTime Video
FaceTime Audio
Line Message
Line Video Call
Line Audio Call

That's just the free stuff - not counting SMS or normal phone calls, which have tariffs. And of course we could download WhatsApp, and all the other guys.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Anonymous Coward]

While POTS may be on the way out. ISPs and TelCos that offer digital voice service have to adhere to the very same regulations.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[pspahn]

I can't think of a consumer product that has taken longer to gain traction.

Arby's has been around since the 60's and I still have yet to meet someone who has eaten there.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[onix]

People puzzle me indeed. They guys is not an idiot; he is ignorant just like the rest of the masses. Platform-independent Skype with multi-user video conferencing has been around forever but FaceTime locked to a single OS is much more popular. Go figure. And for a modest fee you can used Skype for POTS communications with reasonable great international rates.

And for that matter VoIP (Viber, Burner, etc) has existed for a long time, the main issue/hassle has been integrating it with a direct dial number (POTS). At one point I used SipGate.de with a Sip application on iOS successfully having a local area code and it had free incoming and modest cost for outgoing. SipGate is no longer available to US subscibers.

I guess blame European companies for poor marketing.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Anonymous Coward]

I ate there once in like 1986 or '87. They had something called "horsey sauce" if I remember right.

Ah, the foolhardy acts of youth... we all thought we were invincible.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile offers a web only plan that offers 100 minutes, 'unlimited' data (5GB before throttling), and unlimited texts for $30 (yes, thirty dollars) a month.

Without a contract.

It seems like they're the only ones who know what the future of phones will be like.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, during the Hurricane Sandy aftermath the only people in our
neighborhood with any communication with the outside world for almost
two weeks were the ones with POTS. The cell sites were all offline once
the fuel ran out, there was no fuel to get to them, there was no road
access to get to them, there was no power to charge your laptop or cell
phone. Cable was out and not coming back anytime soon. POTS was the only
thing that worked, even though the POTS cables were all over the road
with trees on top of them.

You can regulate that is not the case all you like, but it doesn't change
the reality of what happens during a major disaster.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Anonymous Coward]

We are almost at that day when voice will all be data, but we honestly are not there yet.

There is still a lot of separate infrastructure for voice, and there will continue to be until traditional telephony goes away (which will be a while).

Re: Deprecating the telephone system

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, US prices still have some air in them. In EU i pay ~5$ for "unlimited" data (50GB before throttling) and pay for calls 1 cent a minut, so 100 minutes would be an extra 1 Euro - all together ca 6-7 dollars a month.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what? You can CHOOSE not to pay for most of those subscription fees. We just ditched cable in our house. A mild annoyance, but we've adjusted very nicely. In our household, we pay for Netflix, internet access, and cell phones, but that's about it for subscriptions. If you can't figure out the real annual cost of subscription fees, that's your problem, not that of our "culture." I stopped subscribing to most magazines long ago, they just weren't worth the annual renewal fee.

Your grandfather never paid for any of those services because none of them existed. He did pay for magazine subscriptions and newspaper subscriptions. He did pay for porn by the magazine, VHS tape, or at the dirty movie theater. He paid a monthly phone bill that was rather steeper, as a percentage of income, than today's basic phone bill is, and that probably included mandatory rental of the telephone from the phone company. If he needed to call anywhere outside the town he lived in, he paid maybe $1 - $2 per MINUTE to talk to Aunt Gladys 3 states over. If you're willing to live without the convenience of a cell phone, or are very frugal with your cell usage and use cheap phones and prepaid plans, then you can get phone service for WAY less per month than your grandpa ever dreamed of paying.

So no, Virginia, subscription services are NOT the "single most reason people can't save any amount of real money." Eating out, delaying marriage, student loans, fancy new cars, too-big mortgages, and over-consumption generally are the actual reason so many people are having trouble saving much money. Entertainment for your grandfather was sitting around the house watching a new TV episode, or drinking cheap beer at a buddy's house. Entertainment for a lot of young people today is going to bars and spending $20-$30 for a night of drinks and dancing. If you live as frugally as your grandfather did, you'll do just fine and can save plenty of money.

Re:Deprecating the telephone system

[Archfeld]

I totally agree with you on the going away part, but how do you logically conclude that the reasons behind the regulations/requirements are suddenly not valid in light of the new technology ?
Is it acceptable that the main means of public communication in the event of an emergency are going to be completely unreliable ? Shouldn't the 'new' technology either be better equipped than the old, or at least be held to the same standards ?
Can you hear me now ?

Re:Why so long?

[ArcadeMan]

I understand that Apple is anti-freedom, but why did it take so long for Android?

It took so long for Android because yesterday the big bad anti-freedom Apple announced support for Voice over Wi-Fi and Voice over LTE (VoLTE) with automatic switching between the two when needed.

And that's without taking FaceTime Audio into account, which has been available for a while now but since it's limited to Apple devices only I suppose it's evil from your point of view. Then games being only released for Windows is also evil.

About time

[thsths]

In Google Voice it was free to call US numbers, but only while you were in the US. From abroad, you still had to pay for US calls. Google Voice had a lot of potential, but it never quite realised it. I hope this works better .

What I would like to know if there is some "call in" feature, too? Maybe not a phone number, but a way to call and then be connected to Google Hangouts.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

I used Hangouts to call friends and family in the US when I was in the UK this Spring. Worked better than Skype did, and the landline calls are free.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

In Google Voice it was free to call US numbers, but only while you were in the US. From abroad, you still had to pay for US calls. Google Voice had a lot of potential, but it never quite realised it. I hope this works better .

The restriction was you had to be in the US to create the account. Once you have the account it still works fine to call out to other people in the US and Canada while you are travelling overseas.

What I would like to know if there is some "call in" feature, too? Maybe not a phone number, but a way to call and then be connected to Google Hangouts.

Um, well they do give you a dial-in telephone number from the area code of your choosing, which you set up to forward on to the phone number of your choosing (you can then have your SIP provider forward to a desktop client like Jitsi) and it records and transcribes your voicemails into the Google Voice website. So it's already there if you take a little time to set it up.

Re:About time

[boilednut]

What I would like to know if there is some "call in" feature, too? Maybe not a phone number, but a way to call and then be connected to Google Hangouts.

Yes, as detailed at Hangouts 2.3 Update Brings Remaining Google Voice Integration ..., you can configure the updated Hangouts app to ring for incoming calls to your Google Voice number.

Re:About time

[brunes69]

I have no idea what you're talking about because I have used Google Voice to call home from abroad for free on several occasions.

Re:About time

[Archangel Michael]

You also used to be able to TXT from the US to anywhere in the world. That too disappeared. It was quite useful form of communication to people in other distant time zones.

Re:About time

[greg_barton]

I've been using Google hangouts on my iPad as my sole phone for months now. I get incoming calls on my Google Voice number.

Re:About time

[Ash-Fox]

Just route your connection from an IP that has the GEOIP location of the US when you create your Google Voice account, verify your account with a US skype-in number (or whatever). Then you can access Google voice from anywhere and get free US calls at all times.

If you're already in the US, sign up, go aborad, get/do free US calls.

VoIP calls ought to be free anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

There are free VoIP apps for all phone OSs and routers have VoIP integrated (or can have it integrated through alternative firmware). Nobody needs to have to pay a registrar or ask for handouts. VoIP is a peer to peer technology. With Enum, you can make your regular phone number available for VoIP. With SRV DNS records, you can use your domain for VoIP. Worldwide. And none of it needs to go through Google's servers.

magicJack alternative?

[ArcadeMan]

It's free to call other Hangouts users, it's free to call numbers in the U.S. and Canada.

Wait, you mean you can call from iOS, over Wi-Fi, to a real phone number? And it finally works in Canada too?

Good-bye magicJack and the others.

edit: oh wait, that Google service will work fine for 18 months and then Google will remove it because, hey, no profits in it.

Re:magicJack alternative?

[LeadSongDog]

Unless "don't be evil" will still allow them to profit off delivering ads customized to whatever you've been chatting about on VoIP, then the profit has to be found in licensing Android. How's that working out so far?

Re:magicJack alternative?

[realmolo]

They don't profit directly, but having a database of Google accounts tied to phone numbers that those accounts called/received calls from is pretty valuable, if you are selling advertising. Which, of course, is Google's real business.

You have to remember that EVERYTHING Google does is about gathering information on people, to build a picture of what kind of products those people might buy, and showing advertisements to those people. EVERYTHING.

Re:magicJack alternative?

[dontbemad]

edit: oh wait, that Google service will work fine for 18 months and then Google will remove it because, hey, no profits in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Introduced in 2009. Since then, it has received carrier integration with Sprint, has been integrated into Google Talk, and now into Hangouts. I hardly think this service is going anywhere for the foreseeable future.

Re:magicJack alternative?

[ArcadeMan]

Well, good luck to Google, trying to analyze the only four phone numbers I'll ever be calling. Not much data in that.

Re:magicJack alternative?

[ArcadeMan]

Don't ask me, this is the first time since 2009 that I hear about Google Voice/whatever working in Canada. It took them five years to cross the border, eh?

Re:magicJack alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I've been dialing from Canada to US/Canada with Google Voice for several years...

Re:magicJack alternative?

[ArcadeMan]

This is the first I hear about it. That's how great Google are at advertising their own products.

Re:magicJack alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a naive view. Of course GVoice is at risk, as is every Google service and product, outside of Search and Gmail.

Yes, they got MMS working with Sprint, but failed to do the same with ATT and VZW. They enhanced Hangouts and GTalk, but that didn't really change anything in GV, which has gone basically unchanged for five years.

Have a look at the official Google Voice blog; lots of activity in 2009 and 2010, then it tapered off a lot in 2011, only a few posts in 2012, there was one post in 2013 (23 words!), and no posts in 2014. The people who posted those blog entries work on other projects now. http://googlevoiceblog.blogspot.com/

Re:magicJack alternative?

[weszz]

I will continue to keep magic jack, because that means i have a "landline" for kids and babysitters.

My kids are FAR too young for mobile phones, and i don't want to collect babysitter cell phone numbers. Magicjack fits the need and cheaply, so we won't be dropping them.

Re:magicJack alternative?

[nine-times]

I wonder what's going to happen to the other features, though. Part of the great thing about Google Voice (formerly Grand Central) was that you could route and filter the calls. You could say, "If my girlfriend calls this number, put her directly through to my cell phone. If my boss calls during working hours, ring both my cell and my desk phone. If my boss calls after hours, ring my cell phone twice and then send him to voicemail with my professional voicemail greeting. If my mom calls, ring my home phone. If someone calls and the number isn't in my address book, send it directly to voicemail with an anonymous greeting."

I don't remember what all the options or limitations were, but it had some flexibility. Google Voice still does some of this stuff, but I haven't seen any of it in Hangouts.

Re:magicJack alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh crap you're another SuperKendel or WhisperJeff. Seriously go fellate Steve Jobs somewhere else.

Re:magicJack alternative?

[pspahn]

You know, sometimes a company wants to release a product and have it be used yet they do not want mass adoption, hence they won't advertise it.

Google Voice is one of those products.

Re:magicJack alternative?

[jrumney]

Introduced in 2009.

GrandCentral dates back to at least 2007.

Re:magicJack alternative?

[spacepimp]

If anything I see it getting integrated into more places for enterprise use. Google Apps with Google Voice for employees and using a closed Google+ for an intranet would be very appealing along with video conferencing etc.

Re:magicJack alternative?

[samwichse]

My sister in-law's Rogers phone blocks the installation of Google Voice specifically. She had never heard of it till I showed her my US spec version of the same phone.

Lovely monopolist pricks.

Magic Jack

[Anonymous Coward]

I ...Magi...ack! It's a pretty goo....vice. Some... .... serv...bit......

So, far .... ... .... ...nuts. There you go!

This is new?

[Em Adespoton]

I've been using iOS Hangouts on an iPod to send/receive North America calls (to/from my US Google Voice numbers) for a few months now -- ever since Google restricted their API so that Talkatone stopped working for that same purpose.

The Voice call-in number traditionally had to be a US number, but for dialing out, you could call both the US and Canada free of charge.

I don't really see what's new here other than the publicity.

Re:This is new?

[Sarten-X]

That was my reaction, as well.

Looking at the other comments here, though, I am reminded of what's missing in the Hangouts app. I still switch to the Google Voice app for voice mails, text messages, and making cellular outgoing calls. I'd expect to see at least the first two of those implemented directly in Hangouts.

Re:This is new?

[Em Adespoton]

I seem to recall Google announcing a few months ago that they were planning to add the first one and possibly the last one in the new version of Hangouts (which would be the one they're now announcing, I guess). SMS is more of an issue, as that is actually sent over a different data stream; MMS however, is stream independent, and should work over SMS or IP -- so as long as Google doesn't mind breaking a bit of backwards functionality, they could inject text messaging via this route.

Re:This is new?

[Em Adespoton]

Er, one other thing: if they allow text messages in this manner, they've broken their own two factor authentication, as people will be able to spoof SMS and thus receive SMS alerts on any device where they've purloined someone's user/password. No more 2FA.

Re:This is new?

[mrchaotica]

What's new is that the voice call feature only worked for iOS, not Android until now. Since they restricted the API, those of us who use Android devices have had to subscribe to a third-party VoIP service as a bridge.

Re:This is new?

[mrchaotica]

When enabling two-factor authentication, you should tell Google to send the SMS to your "real" phone number, not your Google Voice number. (However, I suppose if you picked e.g. Sprint's Google Voice integration then you're screwed...)

Re:This is new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. I've been using this since may... Time warp?

Re:This is new?

[Ash-Fox]

those of us who use Android devices have had to subscribe to a third-party VoIP service as a bridge.

I used Google Voice on my Android handset.

Re:This is new?

[mrchaotica]

How? By itself, it doesn't do VoIP.

Re:This is new?

[Ash-Fox]

I've been able to dial out for ages using it?

Re:This is new?

[mrchaotica]

If you try to dial out with Google Voice, it pulls up whatever app is registered to handle dialing phone numbers and makes a call with that. If you only have one such app -- e.g., the system Dialer app -- then it uses that and completes the call as a "real cellular call" using voice minutes. (On my device, it prompts me to choose between the system dialer and my VoIP app, but I only see the prompt because I have multiple programs to handle that intent.)

Try it when on Wi-Fi without a cellular connection and you'll see that it fails.

Re:This is new?

[Ash-Fox]

I actually used to get offered to use the system dialer or google voice when I do a voice call until I set the default...

Re:This is new?

[mrchaotica]

Are you sure? There are actually two (possible) dialogs:

• One is a white-themed dialog with a header labeled with the Google Voice icon + "Google Voice", the choices "Call with Google Voice" and "Call without Google Voice", and a cancel button.
• The other is a black-themed dialog with a header labeled "Call" and the choices (on my phone) the CSipSimple icon + "[my VoIP number]" and the Dialer icon + "Use Mobile".

If your phone is set up the way I think it is, when making a call from Google Voice you'd see the first, white dialog. If you choose "Call without Google Voice" it would make a normal cellular call. If you choose "Call with Google Voice" it would still make a cellular call, but the number called would be Google Voice's number itself, whereupon it would then be routed through Google's servers and then to its destination. But it would still use cellular voice protocols between you and Google. (Your phone would report that it called the number you told it to call, but if you requested a call log from your cellular provider it should show you calling Google instead.)

Re:This is new?

[Anonymous Coward]

All that does it let you pick what phone number shows on the call ID when you dial out. It's isn't a true VOIP call.

Re:Why so long?

[Em Adespoton]

See the other response. This "news" seems to be a direct response to Apple opening up PoTS over Wi-Fi and LTE yesterday. However, it's also not new, as I've been doing this for a while now. Google just hadn't publicised the capability yet.

Re:Why so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

After the phones I purchased to be used with voice no longer work because it excluded third part apps. Thanks Google.

But will it be convenient?

[KDiPietro]

It would be nice if Google allowed their hangout membership to use this service with an ATA adapter. I'm guessing that isn't going to happen.

Ugh

[Jethro]

As long as I can keep using google Voice without using Hangouts, I'm fine. I can't stand Hangouts, and I don't want al lmy contacts integrated into one system. I keep them separate for a reason...

Re:Ugh

[Ash-Fox]

I keep them separate for a reason...

Which is?

Re:Ugh

[Jethro]

The people I want to IM with are not the same people I want to call and are not the same people I want to SMS. They're different groups of people. There are people I don't want to give the ability to comtact me that easily.

Re:Ugh

[Ash-Fox]

Yeah, I don't really have that problem despite having the same separation on my Google Hangouts.

Re:Ugh

[Jethro]

I recently just stopped logging into IM because Hangouts was so... eww. I mean, it wouldn't even tell me if people were online or not.

I still rely on Google Voice, though. I really hope it doesn't end up making me log into Hangouts to use it!

Screw you Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw you Google. I'm not a 17 year old girl and I'm not using something called "Hangouts". And I resent the idea that I should give up any of my privacy by joining a "social network" "service".

Then don't join it..simple as that! Or were you looking for the rest of the world to cater to your desires alone?

grooveip

[thegreatemu]

you've been able to make voip calls using your google voice number from android phones for forever using grooveip (and it's free cousin grooveiplite).

Re:grooveip

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they killed that earlier this year when they stopped using XMPP, and also the use of Voice with things like the ObiHai.

Re:grooveip

[Em Adespoton]

...which is exactly when I switched to using Hangouts for this purpose, and it worked fine for me. On iOS, however.

2009 just called . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa whoa whoa! 2009 just called . . . it wants it's conceptual integration back. They're just getting around to this now?

----- Oh, wait, not an Apple thread? My bad. Woooo! New feature!

Finally..

[nurb432]

I still dont understand why they gave this feature to iOS users instead of *their own platform*

Having relied on 3rd party voip products until they cut off XMPP, this is good.

yes its new

[nurb432]

Us Android users get the feature 'back'.. ( yes i know technically none of us really had the feature. It was a loophole that Google didnt bother to close, until recently.

About time

[Anonymous Coward]

What I would like to know if there is some "call in" feature, too? Maybe not a phone number, but a way to call and then be connected to Google Hangouts.

Not sure if Google voice account setup outside US is any different but if when you get your google voice phone number, one of the destinations is google hangout it will ring on.
It's not very transparent though - callers get asked to introduce themselves, press something else which can be a PITA moment for a customer or at least unusual compared to a regular phone call.

Re:Why so long?

[radl33t]

not true. this has been planned for over a year. in fact it is several months late.

bad

[Anonymous Coward]

you need top end graphics cards to do those hangouts my 2 year old pc with a gt620 wont cut it....
adding voice now

no thanks

Re:bad

[Em Adespoton]

Huh? I can use Hangouts on my 2009 PC just fine via the Chrome plugin. Not that I do; that plugin is a headache to use as it requires Chrome running in the background. But my old touch devices run the mobile apps just fine too.

Hangouts text chat - uses boatloads of data

[Anonymous Coward]

My biggest gripe with Hangouts is that it uses an unbelievable amount of data just for text chat (or does something else in the background that I'm not aware of): I was just chatting back and forth a few lines with my wife and it used 3 MB of data. While on Wifi I would not care, but on 3G/4G that eats into my per MB plan. When I chat using some other xmpp app (which unfortunately does not work reliably any more for google accounts) the amount of data for the same chat used in in the 10s of KB at most.

Re:Hangouts text chat - uses boatloads of data

[Anonymous Coward]

So does the video chat!!

My family does a weekly get together on Google+ Hangouts and we have 3-5 parties talking for about an hour. That typically used 750MB of data for each of us.

Re:Hangouts text chat - uses boatloads of data

[amRadioHed]

I use Hangouts pretty much every day and in the past month it's used less than 15MB of data total on my phone. This includes some photos I've sent with it. I have no idea what you are doing to get such high data usage, but I don't think it's typical.

Google still has to consider carrier's wishes

[sirwired]

Google pushed this out on iOS because they don't care about carriers losing voice revenue on Apple customers. Meanwhile, when convincing carriers to push Android phone, they care very much.

Now that unlimited (or nearly so) voice service is pretty common in smartphone plans (and the amount of time subscribers actually talk with their phones drops), it's not such a big deal for Google to roll out a mechanism to bypass carrier's voice infrastructure.

How does this get modded up?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an article about Google, which has had Google Voice for years, not to mention this was exactly what Skype+MS fought the carriers over for years.

This isn't new or related to Apple.

The carriers have been playing games with voice vs data amounts for years. This is such a good example of the reality distortion field.

Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

people have repeatedly and widely rejected?

Which people are those? Since you're completely unbiased and not prone to ad hominems maybe you can provide a citation.

inum

[robmv]

Google, stop chaging people that uses inum, those are SIP endpoints so it is wrong to charge money for a connection that is direct between SIP user agents, if not, don't complain about the lack of Net neutrality. You are giving advantage to people on your own IP network (Hangouts users) that those outside that want to communicate with Hangouts users.

Search rates for "International Networks - Voxbone" at their calling rate list

Re:inum

[riondluz]

Hi - are you able to make outgoing SIP2SIP calls using GVoice?
I have plenty of SIP#'s (ostel,iptel,antisip,... all provide them) but have yet to figure out a way (from android or linux cli) to make a sip2sip call via GVoice.
My GV# forwards nicely to my devices that have an app assoc'd to a (ipkall) DID# - but not solely a SIP#

Any secrets you can share?

TIA

This is great for those with poor signal, too!

[Jahava]

I have T-Mobile and I am generally pretty pleased, but one thorn in my side is that where I live the signal is poor-to-none. This isn't usually a problem, as I don't generally voice chat and have other call options (e.g., Google Voice, Hangouts). However, it is definitely inconvenient to have to bootstrap every call through a laptop.

This affords me the mobility to easily make calls, wander around, enjoy my deck, etc. and removes that thorn from my side. Thanks, Google!

PS: For those who are waiting for a new Hangouts version, that's not how this is distributed. FTFA, you have to install an add-on dialer app to Hangouts and instant feature! Works great in my limited test runs.

Re:This is great for those with poor signal, too!

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile offers WiFi calling. You get to make and receive calls just like you are on the cell tower,
Using your T-Mobile number.

Re:This is great for those with poor signal, too!

[Wheelie_boy]

T-Mobile offers WiFi calling IF you use their baked-in software. Doesn't work with my Nexus 5, so I'm really looking forward to GoogleVoice integration.

Re:This is great for those with poor signal, too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad I can't install that on my phone running CyanogenMod!

Re:Screw you Google

[mi]

A single person raises the privacy concern and gets moderated "Troll"... Wow... Slashdot must really love Google.

This isn't new.

[dhenson02]

At least, not on the desktop. Maybe the wording of "...on Android, iOS and the web..." makes it news, but I used this last year to dial in to an active conference call with 4 other people in the Hangout for a fantasy football draft (of which I picked the worst team possible). There is too much emphasis placed on VoIP being available "starting today"...when it already was. I also don't see any change from the design in the desktop/web version. If mobile versions are the big update, that should be the focus of the post.

Color me confused.

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not sign Hangouts 'cause I'm not keen on social sites... didn't want to get into Google+.

But they said Hangouts replaced Gtalk (which I was about to use when they said they would pull the plug), so I assumed Hangouts would take care of the Skype-like video communication.

Now they say it's working now? Huh?

Re:magicJack alternative? with ads

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't go anywhere - just the first 15 secs of hangouts will be a pre-recorded ad.

Re:Why so long?

[saleenS281]

Seriously? You're getting upvoted on slashdot with that trash? Android has supported both voice over wifi as well as VoLTE for damn near TWO YEARS.

Hm?

[Vlijmen Fileer]

What /is/ Google "Hangouts"? Some app for criminal unemployed youngsters?

100% Talkatone's greed

[Anonymous Coward]

This! I've actually been using Google Voice with VoIP and that exact T-Mobile plan since last fall. Google Voice + Talkatone (via the XMPP access) worked great until Google disabled it back in the spring, and Google Voice + CSipSimple + a cheap VoIP provider has worked somewhat less well since then.

Google DID NOT disable XMPP access in the spring. Talkatone removed their connector so they could push a VoIP provider who charges per-minute and splits the fee with them.

I switched from Talkatone to GVoice+ a when they pulled that bs and GVoice+ still has no problem using XMPP to access Google Voice (I used it yesterday).

Re:100% Talkatone's greed

[mrchaotica]

O RLY? Okay then, explain why Groove IP and ObiTalk's Google Voice integration quit working at the same time! Surely Groove IP, at least, didn't do it out of greed since they told people to stop using their app at the same time...

Also provide a link to this mysterious "GVoice+" APK, because despite my quite decent web searching skills I couldn't find it and I don't believe it actually exists.

Re:100% Talkatone's greed

[Anonymous Coward]

O RLY? Okay then, explain why Groove IP and ObiTalk's Google Voice integration quit working at the same time! Surely Groove IP, at least, didn't do it out of greed since they told people to stop using their app at the same time...

Google Voice integration with Groove IP and ObiTalk didn't "quit working", those developers chose to remove the code on their end. And you are very mistaken about GrooveIP -- they too took this opportunity to push http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/05/16/grooveip-updated-with-support-for-a-new-voip-service-and-makes-paid-features-free-as-third-party-google-voice-access-ends/ people to a partnered alternative VoIP provider.

Also provide a link to this mysterious "GVoice+" APK, because despite my quite decent web searching skills I couldn't find it and I don't believe it actually exists.

Ain't no "apk" because it's iOS only http://lifehacker.com/gv-mobile-gets-google-voice-voip-calling-and-a-brand-585215809. And late night typo, it's GVMobile+.

Re:100% Talkatone's greed

[mrchaotica]

Did you try reading the article you linked? Here's the first paragraph:

One of the most popular ways to make use of Google Voice on Android has long been GrooveIP. This app was able to route voice calls on a device through Google's free IP call service. Google finally ended third-party access to Google Voice yesterday, but GrooveIP was ready with an alternative.

The statement "Google ended third-party access" means it quit working, and that it did so because of Google, not any of the third-party developers!

Re: 100% Talkatone's greed

[Anonymous Coward]

I still use groove IP every single day.
It only doesn't work for the stupid people that went and upgraded.
Go back to version 1.4.8 works just fine.
I only have a tablet and only gv as a number works fine.

Re: Why so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on man don't be so harsh... If he's an apple fan, he probably didn't know these features existed until Apple announced them. They're like children who think that Battlefield 67 is the worlds first FPS.

Already making calls

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been making calls to landlines from Hangouts on iOS for about a year. I log in with the same Google account I use for Google Voice. The GV integration is hardly something new. What *is* actually new here? I must be missing something.

Oh and by the way...

[Anonymous Coward]

"So keeping in touch is easier and more affordable than ever..." ... and by the way we're recording all of your conversations for the NSA and transcribing them for ourselves so we can monetize you.

I use RedPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way I'm using the voice network, and no way in HELL I'm using anything by Google to carry what might be private and/or privileged conversations.

I use RedPhone exclusively. If you don't have RedPhone, I am not talking to you on the phone.

Security

[ThatsNotPudding]

I assume the security of the connection is haphazard, because, hey it's only an effing voice call. That, or backdoor mandated by the TLAs.

Yet Another Tedious Paid Ad from Google

[RobotRunAmok]

This is another tedious Google slashvertisement. Ignore it, in the hope they will stop.

This is great for those with poor signal, too!

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to have Google Voice integrated into my Sprint phone (primarily because I liked being able to send/read texts from my PC....lousy reason, I know), but finally cut the cord when I realized that Google Voice was the reason I was experiencing absolutely brutal latency on WiFi calls. I was constantly speaking over other people and that just doesn't work in a business context. Took me forever to figure out that Voice was the cause. Once I decoupled, the problem disappeared.

So unless that issue gets resolved I won't be going back, no matter what kind of convenience or value it proposes.

Deprecating the telephone system

[Anonymous Coward]

And can we please ffs get SMS over IP standard?

Hangouts is, in turn, part of plus, right?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am people and I use and like Google Plus, it much better then it's competition and yes I also have an account on it's competition, so I am in a position to judge :p