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."
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.
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.