Slashdot Mirror


Google Fi: Simple Until It's Not

An anonymous reader writes: When Google started Project Fi, one of their big goals was to make cell phone calling simple and predictable. By combining Wi-Fi calling with cellular networks and flat $10/GB pricing, they're trying to put together a service that "just works." But as Dieter Bohn writes, things can get a lot more complicated when you try to integrate it with other Google services, like Voice. He says, "Precisely what happens when you port your number from Voice to Fi (which are kind of the same thing — but not really!) is clear as mud. ... You won't lose your Google Voice number, and it will still do most of the stuff it did before, but you may have to wend your way back to the 2011-era Google Voice site to manage it. Your texts no longer forward via SMS but they're available in the Hangouts App. You can't call people from Google Voice on the web but you can from Hangouts. Oh, and on Android there's a Hangouts dialer app you can use, sometimes, just because."

3 of 51 comments (clear)

  1. Integration is hard work, folks! by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm a developer.

    Integrating two different technologies together seamlessly is *extremely difficult*, folks! Roughly 1/3 of the programmers in our company do little more than maintain integration and "bridges" with other vendor products for our clients. They want what we have to offer, and they want it to work with other products, too.

    Our database schema is north of 500 tables. Despite having a proper signal/handler based, modular, service oriented architecture, and careful attention to best practices and the willingness to refactor as soon as deemed necessary, keeping all these different parts working together is a *tough job*.

    I am not at all surprised that even Google is having trouble integrating their existing voice products with Cell and Wifi. That they are even trying is enough to keep programmers up at night, staring at the ceiling in a state of mild panic.

    If they are successful, I will be impressed.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  2. Re:What about smaller web pages and no JavaScript? by sribe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At 25 Mbit, your "terrible" 1 MB web page takes about 1 second to download. Most of those scripts are then cached, making even your horrible example of a page, in practice, "no big deal".

    Apparently, you're part of the problem.

  3. Re:What about smaller web pages and no JavaScript? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Not everyone can even get such speeds in their area. Some people are still on 1Mbps and cellphone networks can seriously slow down depending on tower congestion, etc.

    2. Not everyone has 64GB of RAM. Those stupidly huge background images that seem popular at the moment can really waste your RAM and make your computer start swapping like crazy. I have 8GB on my system but I have more running than a browser with a single tab open.

    3. A lot of ISPs still impose data caps. It's even worst on mobile where caps are much lower and it's a lot more expensive if you bust them.

    4. If you load all that crap on a mobile phone, you get a really slow web page not to mention those huge images are totally wasted on a smaller display.

    Saying "No big deal" is part of the problem.