first, sorry. There's been a whole string of folks being sarcastic on this, my bad for assuming the same of you.
next, yea, sort of correct, you can ensure that people you call see the caller ID you want (GV number) instead of your personal cell numebr which you might not want them to have. but it also gives you free unlimited text, an better UI to access your voicemails, and a better UI to access your contacts. yea, its a web app, not quite as good as a native app.
Might be a moot point too, as Apple yesterday approved VoIP apps under the OS 3.2 SDK for both iPhone and iPad.
I've not seen 768 lines on a sub 10" netbook, and certainly not on any netbook under $500 unless it was subsidized below that point by a $60/month data plan contract for a 2 year commitment.
1024x600 is not sufficient. I tried. I got by in 1024x768 for years. 768 wide is not bad either since it auto scales, and very few sites are designed for wider than 800 pixels. (there are a few, but then those are also designed for a lot more than 700 lines vertical too...
the point however was not the resolution, it was the experience, fluidity, rotation, and more. A netbook MIGHT have a better resolution screen (though certainly not IPS response and color in this price class), but netbooks don;t do portrait, weigh more, have more limited batteries, and don't do HDTV (in this price class).
Will it replace all uses for a netbook, hell no. It replaces 70% of the reason though, and likely half the users could easily exchange an iPad for 100% of their needs in this class. That's tens of millions of devices per year, and they're hoping to sell 4 million atm...
Hmm, why for instance would a device with no Voice calling chip have SDK functions to background a "call"?
The iPad has call suppression features. The battery life deal was in fact pretty big for the iPhone. Also, it's original incarnation didn't have an app store, and Apple didn't have plans for all other forms of things (almost all their own original apps did multitask).
Yea, switching can use serious improvement, but it;s not like you're "quitting" apps when switching today (unless they don't code for suspend support) and the difference between RAM and Flash is really a grey area... It's kind of like having 1GB of ram and 15GB of swap space... it;s easily interchanged, and OS level functions like downloads continue.
I've looked at a lot of use cases, given the iPhone UI there was less of a case than with the iPad, and some levels, like chat, could easily be brought through now.
OS 4 is around the corner. Apple has ADMITTED additional levels of both background and foreground processing are in the works. Use of a single IP connection will likely prevail forever (there really is not argument against that), and certain centralized processing subsystems (like audio generation/playback), but we do expect continued improvement in this area.
Still, I have a hard time multitasking unless I've got multiple displays and a whole lot more screen resolution. multiple apps running at the same time if they're on top of each other doesn't gain me any productivity. Make the pop-ups more thorough (don;t just give a notification, give the complete text, and a reply option, this slight modification to notifications essentially BECOMES a chat app and could be used more flexiblally elsewhere).
The real limitations on the iPhone were RAM, battery, and UI SPACE. UI space is solved, as soon as they redesign it... Don't believe us? wait until June and OS 4 to buy it...
Acrobat is dying. Yes, PDF is used widely, but BUYING acrobat is at best optional now as all Macs, and MS Office, and many other products make PDF for free. The advanced features of PDF creation are rarely used. Acrobat will likely stop being a product in the near future.
Photoshop, yea, still big. no longer quite as impressive since Gimp. Loosing market share. Time the product dropped to under $199.
After Effects and Premiere, i know a few people who have it, most of them moved to FilmMaker Pro. The more popular Apple and Linux gets, the smaller Adobe's business will get.
When i say Adobe is dead, I mean it's a company that's got no future. They were the king, and they got too comfortable on the throne and failed to continue true innovation. Their current security issues, and bloated under performing code base is their death knell.
more importantly, NO CONTRACT REQUIRED. One month you turn it on, next month you can turn it off, then on later. Activates from the device itself. Also like that it's OPTIONAL. (since it can also tether with an iPhone).
Well, considdering both the low res of netbooks, and the portrait-only widescreen display mode, and considdering no other mobile device can do that, honestly he's right, this is the first mobile device other than an full scale notebook platform that can display an entire web site on a screen. (old school tablets too, but they're not exactly $500 devices either).
on the exclamation of turning it, yea, i agree. Not exactly revolutionary.
there is no confirmation one way or the other on that. iPhone OS DOES multi-task, just not foreground user apps. notifications, messaging, audio source playback all do work in the background on iPhone OS 3.1. This new UI does make it much simpler to create a solution to handle more intuitive app switching (which is all we're really talking about since all other OS level functions, including downloads in Safari, do work in the background). This very well could have more features that we've been exposed to.
Well, since it has no native GPS chip (i think a bad move, but hey, there will be another model in 8 months...), then what are you missing? media streaming? Apple has already admitted an iPod/iTunes app plug-in model is in the works for iPhone OS 4, so Pandora streaming while editing docs should be a non issue... Outside of that, c'mon really. It;s 64GB for $830 at 10", or for $899 you get a 13" macbook... WEhat would you choose if you were a power user of a device (lets face it, a power user looking for multitasking is going to want 3G and 64GB and not be happy with the 16GB $499 base model).
Honestly, Apple is dead on in the market segment, and they're right, multitasking is irrelevent. So long as i can use it while it's syncing, and i get an iPod plug-in system, Safari already background downloads, iPod already backgrounds, notifications work, e-mail is allways on, it's not a phone... multitasking is not required. there is no use case.
It not only has a keyboard dock, but it also natively supports the Apple Bluetooth keyboard (which means likely other Bluetooth keyboards as well). It's a tablet, not a notebook. If you want a notebook, spend $400 more and get an iBook, spend the same and gett a poorer performing PC netbook. Spend $1500 and get a "real" tablet. I think it;s a REAL NICE pricepoint for it's features. (and we still only know have it's capabilities).
What? WiFi N built in, 3G optional, tethers as well.
No, 16GB for the base model is not a lot, but 64GB is fine (especially since you'll stream most video in your home), and the 64GB model is $100 less than the low estimates that were given for the starting price estimate just yesterday...
You're getting 64GB for $699 if you have an iPhone and $830 if not and you need 3G. NO CONTRACT REQUIREMENT for the 3g as well and only $29/month (prepaid terms). Just yesterday everyone assumes $899 - 1000. You're complaining that you got what you expected for less money?
underpowered? I know of VERY few netbooks that can handle 720p video, let alone ANY 3D gaming at all.
Oh, and a netbook is heavier, runs batteries down faster, and has to be patched and maintained like a PC (which means AV etc), and all the software you have on your PC needs a seperate license to run on the Netbook (if it runs at all). It's also not landscape/portrait native, doesn't support multi-touch, and doesn't feel right as an e-book reader.
The number in a F&F list must be a "landline, mobile, or toll free number and must be based in the US, and can't be one of your own numbers or your voicemail number" Google voice numbers are none of the above.
Just confirmed this from a Verizon supervisor. It;s not explicitly in their Customer agreement, however, it falls under rules related to use of services that bypass Verizon's billing practices and is considered an abuse of service.
AT&T is actively banning GV numbers from the a-List as well.
Verizon does not ban the use of GV numbers, simply bills based on the appropriate incoming caller ID or target you are calling. Since Google optionally obfuscates the caller ID, verizon does not list google numbers as valid for the F&F plan, nor does AT&T.
Actually, google itself has little control over the marketplace, and there are other marketplaces not under google's control at all. Perhaps I should have said "no control over the ANDROID marketplace" which is more correct.
Apple has sole control of the apple store, and that can be used as a bargaining tool, yes.
A portable phone number, single number to reach you anywhere on any device, blacklist numbers, screen calls, listed to cellphone voice mails as they're being left, record calls on the fly, managing central contact lists instead of multiple devices and a home phone not being in sync, central call history, voice mail transcription for free, free unlimited texting, I could easily go on longer, but maybe you should just READ THE FEATURES PAGE before you diss a product.
lol. i had not caught the correlation. My handle is actually from my days playing beach volleyball, when I refused to wear the (forgive me) faggy shorts common at the time and wore traditional beach shorts (denim, torn khacki, etc) with pockets, and always had pockets full of sand...
That's the whole idea. Dumb users can only run SIGNED apps... Signed apps likely are not viruses/trojans.
No, this won't stop dumb users from opening up vulns, but it will stop general virus distribution in P2P channels, email, and other systems that "trick" a user into clicking install.
yea, it's a huge system to implement, and yea, at least a new OS release is needed (likely not a whole new one, but enough to not call it Win 7 anymore or somehow designate the difference). I didn;t say it would be easy, just a good idea.:)
Verizon has no contractual control of the Google Phone marketplace.
My wife and her mom are on a Verizon family plan and do have the circle (10 people actually). On AT&T you have to have the second tier plan to the the A List.
I'm checking Verizon now, and you appear to be correct, so perhaps My wife is grandfathered in under an older plan. I remember when Verizon and "Chad" merged, it was available on all plans.
Also keep in mind, this app also means unlimited free text, their #1 more profitable revenue stream...
AT&T confirmed it was not their issue, and gave Apple the green light, but apple responded with "ongoing contract analysis" and this was during a time where Verizon was actively working with Apple on a deal.
That's how it works from the website or from the real app, yes. However, in this case, Google is providing a number for YOU to call and preprogramming the call redirect. It them uses your caller ID from THAT number to the target, so, my phone number I'm calling from (outgoing call) does NOT appear to the person I'm calling, my google number does. They clearly can modify caller ID as well as incoming calls can pass through the callers ID or simply display your google number to you.
unfortunately, no 3G on AT&T means on any provider available, coice and data on the nexus one concurrently is not possible. That's a BIG problem for me. i concurrently use voice and data (taking a call or important SMS while reading e-mail, news, weather, etc or using GPS) about 20 times a day.
Also, get your facts straight. it;s not Apple stopping the app. Initially it was Apple enforcing AT&T's "no VoIP" contract terms, which AT&T did lift, but AT&T is NOT the only provider, nor are they the only prospective provider, and several others still enforce no VoIP apps over cell data network rules.
No, Google Voice is not a VoIP app, but it is a call redirection app, and actually, to the provider, that's worse. (most data plans have caps, but "in" minutes or "my 5" have no limit, plus it also permits SMS redirection allowing unlimited free TXT service without a text plan.
There is an explicit reason this is so. Google currently operates solely as a call forwarding service. They also offer Gizmo services on that number, but only to other gizmo subscribers as PC to PC communication. Should Google offer to connect a traditional Voip Provider, as a voIP extention accessing a google numebr that could call terrestrial lines, then google would become a telephone proivider, not a routing service provider, and then they'de be responsible for 911, e911, and special rates they don't want to pay (that AT&T is fighting to make them pay).
By remaining a simple central routing point for other numbers and services, Google provides a good service for free. Stepping across certain lines opens them up to regulation, requires them to collect certain taxes, and incurs fees to you.
It IS possible to have Google voice forward to a Skype-in number, and it;s also possible to dial through google voice with Skype, however, that's not going to work through an iPod touch as the google web app is trying to contact the iPhone dialer API which does not exist there, and web programs can't access app launch protocols so the google web app can't talk to the skype app at all (for very good security reasons!)
Slashdot Mirror
first, sorry. There's been a whole string of folks being sarcastic on this, my bad for assuming the same of you.
next, yea, sort of correct, you can ensure that people you call see the caller ID you want (GV number) instead of your personal cell numebr which you might not want them to have. but it also gives you free unlimited text, an better UI to access your voicemails, and a better UI to access your contacts. yea, its a web app, not quite as good as a native app.
Might be a moot point too, as Apple yesterday approved VoIP apps under the OS 3.2 SDK for both iPhone and iPad.
I've not seen 768 lines on a sub 10" netbook, and certainly not on any netbook under $500 unless it was subsidized below that point by a $60/month data plan contract for a 2 year commitment.
1024x600 is not sufficient. I tried. I got by in 1024x768 for years. 768 wide is not bad either since it auto scales, and very few sites are designed for wider than 800 pixels. (there are a few, but then those are also designed for a lot more than 700 lines vertical too...
the point however was not the resolution, it was the experience, fluidity, rotation, and more. A netbook MIGHT have a better resolution screen (though certainly not IPS response and color in this price class), but netbooks don;t do portrait, weigh more, have more limited batteries, and don't do HDTV (in this price class).
Will it replace all uses for a netbook, hell no. It replaces 70% of the reason though, and likely half the users could easily exchange an iPad for 100% of their needs in this class. That's tens of millions of devices per year, and they're hoping to sell 4 million atm...
Gee, never though of a pair of 28" monitors as portable....
Hmm, why for instance would a device with no Voice calling chip have SDK functions to background a "call"?
The iPad has call suppression features. The battery life deal was in fact pretty big for the iPhone. Also, it's original incarnation didn't have an app store, and Apple didn't have plans for all other forms of things (almost all their own original apps did multitask).
Yea, switching can use serious improvement, but it;s not like you're "quitting" apps when switching today (unless they don't code for suspend support) and the difference between RAM and Flash is really a grey area... It's kind of like having 1GB of ram and 15GB of swap space... it;s easily interchanged, and OS level functions like downloads continue.
I've looked at a lot of use cases, given the iPhone UI there was less of a case than with the iPad, and some levels, like chat, could easily be brought through now.
OS 4 is around the corner. Apple has ADMITTED additional levels of both background and foreground processing are in the works. Use of a single IP connection will likely prevail forever (there really is not argument against that), and certain centralized processing subsystems (like audio generation/playback), but we do expect continued improvement in this area.
Still, I have a hard time multitasking unless I've got multiple displays and a whole lot more screen resolution. multiple apps running at the same time if they're on top of each other doesn't gain me any productivity. Make the pop-ups more thorough (don;t just give a notification, give the complete text, and a reply option, this slight modification to notifications essentially BECOMES a chat app and could be used more flexiblally elsewhere).
The real limitations on the iPhone were RAM, battery, and UI SPACE. UI space is solved, as soon as they redesign it... Don't believe us? wait until June and OS 4 to buy it...
Acrobat is dying. Yes, PDF is used widely, but BUYING acrobat is at best optional now as all Macs, and MS Office, and many other products make PDF for free. The advanced features of PDF creation are rarely used. Acrobat will likely stop being a product in the near future.
Photoshop, yea, still big. no longer quite as impressive since Gimp. Loosing market share. Time the product dropped to under $199.
After Effects and Premiere, i know a few people who have it, most of them moved to FilmMaker Pro. The more popular Apple and Linux gets, the smaller Adobe's business will get.
When i say Adobe is dead, I mean it's a company that's got no future. They were the king, and they got too comfortable on the throne and failed to continue true innovation. Their current security issues, and bloated under performing code base is their death knell.
more importantly, NO CONTRACT REQUIRED. One month you turn it on, next month you can turn it off, then on later. Activates from the device itself. Also like that it's OPTIONAL. (since it can also tether with an iPhone).
Well, considdering both the low res of netbooks, and the portrait-only widescreen display mode, and considdering no other mobile device can do that, honestly he's right, this is the first mobile device other than an full scale notebook platform that can display an entire web site on a screen. (old school tablets too, but they're not exactly $500 devices either).
on the exclamation of turning it, yea, i agree. Not exactly revolutionary.
there is no confirmation one way or the other on that. iPhone OS DOES multi-task, just not foreground user apps. notifications, messaging, audio source playback all do work in the background on iPhone OS 3.1. This new UI does make it much simpler to create a solution to handle more intuitive app switching (which is all we're really talking about since all other OS level functions, including downloads in Safari, do work in the background). This very well could have more features that we've been exposed to.
Well, since it has no native GPS chip (i think a bad move, but hey, there will be another model in 8 months...), then what are you missing? media streaming? Apple has already admitted an iPod/iTunes app plug-in model is in the works for iPhone OS 4, so Pandora streaming while editing docs should be a non issue... Outside of that, c'mon really. It;s 64GB for $830 at 10", or for $899 you get a 13" macbook... WEhat would you choose if you were a power user of a device (lets face it, a power user looking for multitasking is going to want 3G and 64GB and not be happy with the 16GB $499 base model).
Honestly, Apple is dead on in the market segment, and they're right, multitasking is irrelevent. So long as i can use it while it's syncing, and i get an iPod plug-in system, Safari already background downloads, iPod already backgrounds, notifications work, e-mail is allways on, it's not a phone... multitasking is not required. there is no use case.
the case is designed to give the back enda a 1-2" lift, which should make it feel fairly natural of an angle (just no tactile feedback)
It not only has a keyboard dock, but it also natively supports the Apple Bluetooth keyboard (which means likely other Bluetooth keyboards as well). It's a tablet, not a notebook. If you want a notebook, spend $400 more and get an iBook, spend the same and gett a poorer performing PC netbook. Spend $1500 and get a "real" tablet. I think it;s a REAL NICE pricepoint for it's features. (and we still only know have it's capabilities).
What? WiFi N built in, 3G optional, tethers as well.
No, 16GB for the base model is not a lot, but 64GB is fine (especially since you'll stream most video in your home), and the 64GB model is $100 less than the low estimates that were given for the starting price estimate just yesterday...
You're getting 64GB for $699 if you have an iPhone and $830 if not and you need 3G. NO CONTRACT REQUIREMENT for the 3g as well and only $29/month (prepaid terms). Just yesterday everyone assumes $899 - 1000. You're complaining that you got what you expected for less money?
underpowered? I know of VERY few netbooks that can handle 720p video, let alone ANY 3D gaming at all.
Oh, and a netbook is heavier, runs batteries down faster, and has to be patched and maintained like a PC (which means AV etc), and all the software you have on your PC needs a seperate license to run on the Netbook (if it runs at all). It's also not landscape/portrait native, doesn't support multi-touch, and doesn't feel right as an e-book reader.
Hulu and Youtube are already beta testing HTML 5. This will be replacing flash in months... Adobe is dead.
The number in a F&F list must be a "landline, mobile, or toll free number and must be based in the US, and can't be one of your own numbers or your voicemail number" Google voice numbers are none of the above.
Just confirmed this from a Verizon supervisor. It;s not explicitly in their Customer agreement, however, it falls under rules related to use of services that bypass Verizon's billing practices and is considered an abuse of service.
AT&T is actively banning GV numbers from the a-List as well.
Verizon does not ban the use of GV numbers, simply bills based on the appropriate incoming caller ID or target you are calling. Since Google optionally obfuscates the caller ID, verizon does not list google numbers as valid for the F&F plan, nor does AT&T.
Actually, google itself has little control over the marketplace, and there are other marketplaces not under google's control at all. Perhaps I should have said "no control over the ANDROID marketplace" which is more correct.
Apple has sole control of the apple store, and that can be used as a bargaining tool, yes.
A portable phone number, single number to reach you anywhere on any device, blacklist numbers, screen calls, listed to cellphone voice mails as they're being left, record calls on the fly, managing central contact lists instead of multiple devices and a home phone not being in sync, central call history, voice mail transcription for free, free unlimited texting, I could easily go on longer, but maybe you should just READ THE FEATURES PAGE before you diss a product.
lol. i had not caught the correlation. My handle is actually from my days playing beach volleyball, when I refused to wear the (forgive me) faggy shorts common at the time and wore traditional beach shorts (denim, torn khacki, etc) with pockets, and always had pockets full of sand...
That's the whole idea. Dumb users can only run SIGNED apps... Signed apps likely are not viruses/trojans.
No, this won't stop dumb users from opening up vulns, but it will stop general virus distribution in P2P channels, email, and other systems that "trick" a user into clicking install.
yea, it's a huge system to implement, and yea, at least a new OS release is needed (likely not a whole new one, but enough to not call it Win 7 anymore or somehow designate the difference). I didn;t say it would be easy, just a good idea. :)
Verizon has no contractual control of the Google Phone marketplace.
My wife and her mom are on a Verizon family plan and do have the circle (10 people actually). On AT&T you have to have the second tier plan to the the A List.
I'm checking Verizon now, and you appear to be correct, so perhaps My wife is grandfathered in under an older plan. I remember when Verizon and "Chad" merged, it was available on all plans.
Well, they're the most evil provider currently.
Also keep in mind, this app also means unlimited free text, their #1 more profitable revenue stream...
AT&T confirmed it was not their issue, and gave Apple the green light, but apple responded with "ongoing contract analysis" and this was during a time where Verizon was actively working with Apple on a deal.
That's how it works from the website or from the real app, yes. However, in this case, Google is providing a number for YOU to call and preprogramming the call redirect. It them uses your caller ID from THAT number to the target, so, my phone number I'm calling from (outgoing call) does NOT appear to the person I'm calling, my google number does. They clearly can modify caller ID as well as incoming calls can pass through the callers ID or simply display your google number to you.
A very good hack, backed by a full fledged VRU and call processing rules. I approve.
unfortunately, no 3G on AT&T means on any provider available, coice and data on the nexus one concurrently is not possible. That's a BIG problem for me. i concurrently use voice and data (taking a call or important SMS while reading e-mail, news, weather, etc or using GPS) about 20 times a day.
Also, get your facts straight. it;s not Apple stopping the app. Initially it was Apple enforcing AT&T's "no VoIP" contract terms, which AT&T did lift, but AT&T is NOT the only provider, nor are they the only prospective provider, and several others still enforce no VoIP apps over cell data network rules.
No, Google Voice is not a VoIP app, but it is a call redirection app, and actually, to the provider, that's worse. (most data plans have caps, but "in" minutes or "my 5" have no limit, plus it also permits SMS redirection allowing unlimited free TXT service without a text plan.
There is an explicit reason this is so. Google currently operates solely as a call forwarding service. They also offer Gizmo services on that number, but only to other gizmo subscribers as PC to PC communication. Should Google offer to connect a traditional Voip Provider, as a voIP extention accessing a google numebr that could call terrestrial lines, then google would become a telephone proivider, not a routing service provider, and then they'de be responsible for 911, e911, and special rates they don't want to pay (that AT&T is fighting to make them pay).
By remaining a simple central routing point for other numbers and services, Google provides a good service for free. Stepping across certain lines opens them up to regulation, requires them to collect certain taxes, and incurs fees to you.
It IS possible to have Google voice forward to a Skype-in number, and it;s also possible to dial through google voice with Skype, however, that's not going to work through an iPod touch as the google web app is trying to contact the iPhone dialer API which does not exist there, and web programs can't access app launch protocols so the google web app can't talk to the skype app at all (for very good security reasons!)