Yeah. And the reason was to preserve the User Experience.
Yeah, Right.
We all believe that.
The reasons given were all, unabashedly, bullshit. The only reason was that the service was from google. Period. Every reason they gave was countered by the existence other similar/identical apps that were allowed. The only common difference is that allowed apps were not using the GoogleVoice service. Anyone that actually bought into the reasons, or better yet, argued in defense of those embarrassingly weak reasons, looked foolish then and look more foolish now.
Yay! I'm happy for Sean Kovacs. His GV Mobile app was awesome (it stopped working on my iPod touch many months ago due to some sort of change in the Google Voice authentication process).
Apple is doing the right thing; it's frustrating that it took so long for them to come to their senses on some of these baffling decisions and to publish their app store guidelines.
I still have the GV Mobile app in my iTunes, looking for an update soon!
For turn by turn spoken navigation - MapQuest is quite good - perhaps not quite as slick or polished as Google Maps - and not as integrated into the overall iOS as Google (unless there is a way to change the default map software that I am missing). The latest update even rotates the map to follow you direction - includes auto recalculate. Does require network connection (Wi-Fi or cellular) to download maps on the fly - so not as fast perhaps or as easy to plan long or distant routes as TomTom for example - but smaller footprint on your device - and MapQuest is free.
Google Apps has voice for search - and the maps app in there has more options than the standard Google Maps app.
Well, NO, Google would have to resubmit a recompiled version for the latest iOS SDK...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
The Google app was never 'rejected' it was just never approved. It has been sitting in the queue for a year and a half. Hopefully, if these apps are going to be approved, Apple will just rubber stamp it and it will be released.
The Google app was never 'rejected' it was just never approved. It has been sitting in the queue for a year and a half. Hopefully, if these apps are going to be approved, Apple will just rubber stamp it and it will be released.
Well I was pretty brash in saying that this would never happen (months back), so I'll be the first to admit I was wrong if it comes about. I'm guessing the huge Android numbers are what's really at the bottom of all this.
Apart from Google Voice not being available in Europe, so the EU will do nothing, unless they want Google to give an explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub
While I agree there are huge leaps of logic in this thread, I think your take is off too. No offense.
The US market is big to Apple and if the tables were turned and the EU decided to get nasty, I could see Apple reacting the same way. Now, do I believe that this was in response to the FTC? I think it is a mixture of several items and yes that would be one of them.
I see this as more of a, Ooopps, we just learned some new information (Windows 7) and a case of the duh, we need to get this app store thing fixed before Win Mobile comes out and gives us a second case of heart burn.
Apple has to realize their unwillingness to put the iPhone on VZW in the US has placed them in a vulnerable position and that came at a price. I believe Apple did not see Android making the progress it has made.
Yes, Mapquest is AWESOME, they just need to integrate Trapster, and I would be very happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64
For turn by turn spoken navigation - MapQuest is quite good - perhaps not quite as slick or polished as Google Maps - and not as integrated into the overall iOS as Google (unless there is a way to change the default map software that I am missing). The latest update even rotates the map to follow you direction - includes auto recalculate. Does require network connection (Wi-Fi or cellular) to download maps on the fly - so not as fast perhaps or as easy to plan long or distant routes as TomTom for example - but smaller footprint on your device - and MapQuest is free.
Google Apps has voice for search - and the maps app in there has more options than the standard Google Maps app.
The Google app was never 'rejected' it was just never approved. It has been sitting in the queue for a year and a half.
That seems like a razor's edge of a fine distinction that had the same result as far as anyone could tell. It didn't sound like they were ever going to approve it if it weren't for the rule changes.
That seems like a razor's edge of a fine distinction that had the same result as far as anyone could tell. It didn't sound like they were ever going to approve it if it weren't for the rule changes.
Sorry, I was being facetious. I was making light of one of the excuses made at the time, that Apple shouldn't be questioned about rejecting the app because it was not rejected but still being examined and pending. IIRC, their response to the FCC actually said this. It was so ridiculous and showed such contempt, it was hilarious watching people actually accept this as a legitimate answer. Posters here actually used it in their defense "How can anyone blame Apple for rejecting it when the didn't actually reject it it". People actually got into very long winded debates about the distinctions implied between rejected, approved, pending, etc. Should dig out those old threads for a laugh.
Well I was pretty brash in saying that this would never happen (months back), so I'll be the first to admit I was wrong if it comes about. I'm guessing the huge Android numbers are what's really at the bottom of all this.
Lots of people thought it wouldn't happen. No reason to apologize for that. It was the people that parroted the excuses given as legitimate reasons that were wrong. Not one of the 'reasons' given stood up to examination at the time and even less so since. Now that it seems they will be approved, it is pretty obvious the only reason back then was to stick it to google. Any other reasons were silly and it was naive at best to have bought into them let alone seriously repeat them.
What is so great and fabulous about google voice in general? I've had it since they rolled it out and if you took it away tomorrow, I'm not sure I'd miss any of it. GV calls within the US use cell minutes, so what's the point? International calls? There's an app for that and it's named Skype.
For me, the main reasons to use Google Voice over alternatives like Skype is cost. SkypeOut (which gives you a phone number) isn't free. And most international call rates are cheaper (including free to Canada). While some calling cards offer lower rate, they aren't as easy to use.
Another compelling reason is SMS. With email forwarding, many iPhone texting apps (e.g., TextNow, TextFree) can fully integrate with Google Voice for texting. Other people will see GV phone # when you reply from these apps even. And I have more confidence in my Google Voice # being around (vs. # assigned from these texting apps).
You seem to have missed the point. Your last one about handing out your GV number instead of your cell number not being "the profile of an iPhone user" makes no sense at all. WTF does the origin of the phone number you provide have to do with your 'profile'? As far as it using up cell minutes, well, it depends on your plan. If you have unlimited local calling or My5 or unlimited domestic calling, then any GV (or any other call pass through service) is indeed a local call and will use your 'free' minutes. If you have unlimited incoming calls, then and call back service will also use your 'free' minutes. Various iterations of the GV service have used both of these. If you have a shitty plan, then GV might not make sense for you. You shouldn't use it, or try to get a better plan. For the number consolidation, if you have 2 phones, then it has some benefits. Even if you only have one phone, the level of control it provides for call management if impressive.
Re; your first sentence: instead of working yourself up to a lather and paraphrasing (wrongly) what I wrote, please re-read. If you make a valid counter-argument, I'll be happy to address it.
As for using your gv # as one on your calling circle numbers, I am aware of the scheme. My plan does not include a calling circle. I would have to pay extra for that so no, I would not be getting free gv calls--although I suppose it could be cost-effective for somes. But just not for me. Contrary to your opinion, this does not make my plan shitty nor does it mean that I need a "better" plan.
As for the call management and voice features, they were fun to play with for a time. I found glitches with some phones/carriers which I won't get into here (although it worked well with the iPhone and AT&T in general). Still, I prefer the visual voicemail built into the phone app over yet another app just to make a call or retrieve voicemail.
I found the voice quality consistently better with AT&T cellular than through gv voip. Same for skype...AT&T cellular is better for me. So I prefer that over voip calls. Maybe I'm in the minority who has good AT&T coverage.
And once again, transcripts were useless. Yet I see them being touted on google forums everywhere. Maybe people who call me don't speak clearly. I dunno.
In closing, that adds up to a whole lotta nothing for me as far as gv is concerned. YMMV, but don't make it seems as if I'm senile and have no clue about this. And in case you're wondering, my question was an honest one. What will the app do that google's web app does not? I never got to use the app (no iphone at the time) so maybe I'll try it once it's approved and be pleasantly surprised.
For me, the main reasons to use Google Voice over alternatives like Skype is cost. SkypeOut (which gives you a phone number) isn't free. And most international call rates are cheaper (including free to Canada). While some calling cards offer lower rate, they aren't as easy to use.
Another compelling reason is SMS. With email forwarding, many iPhone texting apps (e.g., TextNow, TextFree) can fully integrate with Google Voice for texting. Other people will see GV phone # when you reply from these apps even. And I have more confidence in my Google Voice # being around (vs. # assigned from these texting apps).
Thank you for your response. Yes, the SMS part is true and very valid. I prefer textfree for free SMS so I use that.
I only use skype for international outgoing so I have no number to pay for. I had not noticed that gv is cheaper to Europe (where I mostly call) than skype. It looked to be in the same ballpark last time I checked but I concede the point as I don't make it a habit of checking regularly. Basically, a $10 skype credit keeps me loaded for a lot of calls so I haven't had the motivation to look for cheaper.
Like I said to another poster, I will look at the app when it comes out. I like to revalaute all this stuff every so often.
Re; your first sentence: instead of working yourself up to a lather and paraphrasing (wrongly) what I wrote, please re-read. If you make a valid counter-argument, I'll be happy to address it.
As for using your gv # as one on your calling circle numbers, I am aware of the scheme. My plan does not include a calling circle. I would have to pay extra for that so no, I would not be getting free gv calls--although I suppose it could be cost-effective for somes. But just not for me. Contrary to your opinion, this does not make my plan shitty nor does it mean that I need a "better" plan.
As for the call management and voice features, they were fun to play with for a time. I found glitches with some phones/carriers which I won't get into here (although it worked well with the iPhone and AT&T in general). Still, I prefer the visual voicemail built into the phone app over yet another app just to make a call or retrieve voicemail.
I found the voice quality consistently better with AT&T cellular than through gv voip. Same for skype...AT&T cellular is better for me. So I prefer that over voip calls. Maybe I'm in the minority who has good AT&T coverage.
And once again, transcripts were useless. Yet I see them being touted on google forums everywhere. Maybe people who call me don't speak clearly. I dunno.
In closing, that adds up to a whole lotta nothing for me as far as gv is concerned. YMMV, but don't make it seems as if I'm senile and have no clue about this. And in case you're wondering, my question was an honest one. What will the app do that google's web app does not? I never got to use the app (no iphone at the time) so maybe I'll try it once it's approved and be pleasantly surprised.
Not lathered and not bothered. I don't think I incorrectly paraphrased anything you wrote, it stands on its own.
You were making it sound like things like it using cell minutes was a general problem for everyone and would be deal breakers. Perhaps they would be for you and some others but certainly not for all. By 'shitty' I mean most plans these says have some sort of 'free' minutes, whether that is calling circles, unlimited incoming or unlimited local. If yours doesn't, fine, perhaps it isn't shitty. My friends plan has nothing like that, has fewer minutes than mine and he pays more than me. To me, that is shitty. And for many, more cost effective and cheaper, if not free, is better than the full pop that the carriers charge. Transcripts really are useless.
As to you question what a native app provides that a web app does not:
1) faster load times
2) direct access to your local contacts instead of having to sync them from your desktop.
3) push notifications (voice mail, messages, etc)
4) Once GV releases its own VOIP client/API, then you have a skype alternative for purely data network calls, in and out.
5) Better integration with the touch interface. While webapps can do a lot here, they cannot meet native apps. That is exactly why Apple reversed the earlier position on any native apps at all.
I am sure there are other reasons. These are the ones that stand out to me.
Not lathered and not bothered. I don't think I incorrectly paraphrased anything you wrote, it stands on its own.
You were making it sound like things like it using cell minutes was a general problem for everyone and would be deal breakers. Perhaps they would be for you and some others but certainly not for all. By 'shitty' I mean most plans these says have some sort of 'free' minutes, whether that is calling circles, unlimited incoming or unlimited local. If yours doesn't, fine, perhaps it isn't shitty. My friends plan has nothing like that, has fewer minutes than mine and he pays more than me. To me, that is shitty. And for many, more cost effective and cheaper, if not free, is better than the full pop that the carriers charge. Transcripts really are useless.
As to you question what a native app provides that a web app does not:
1) faster load times
2) direct access to your local contacts instead of having to sync them from your desktop.
3) push notifications (voice mail, messages, etc)
4) Once GV releases its own VOIP client/API, then you have a skype alternative for purely data network calls, in and out.
5) Better integration with the touch interface. While webapps can do a lot here, they cannot meet native apps. That is exactly why Apple reversed the earlier position on any native apps at all.
I am sure there are other reasons. These are the ones that stand out to me.
Re the app differences, thanks for the details.
Re calling plans, are you on AT&T and would you mind telling me which plan? I will check it out to see if it would work better for me than what I have now.
Re the prepaid phone and number porting thing, perhaps I did not make my point well. In fact it is a very popular way of using gv and I tried it myself. (Abandoned it for reasons I won't get into here.) It goes like this:
Say you want the cheapest phone minutes, text and data and no contract. You have a few choices, mostly tracfone type stuff. Since there is no contract, you move to another carrier when something better comes along. These companies are notorious for horrible cs and often botch number porting so you don't even bother trying to port your number. You just take a new number each time. Since all your contacts use your gv number to call you anyway, you just add your new number to your gv account and presto! You don't miss a beat. Can you see where under that scenario I might say that this is not the profile of an iPhone user? There was nothing derogatory in my statement.
Comments
The Google app was never 'rejected' it was just never approved.
Yeah. And the reason was to preserve the User Experience.
Yeah, Right.
We all believe that.
Yeah. And the reason was to preserve the User Experience.
Yeah, Right.
We all believe that.
The reasons given were all, unabashedly, bullshit. The only reason was that the service was from google. Period. Every reason they gave was countered by the existence other similar/identical apps that were allowed. The only common difference is that allowed apps were not using the GoogleVoice service. Anyone that actually bought into the reasons, or better yet, argued in defense of those embarrassingly weak reasons, looked foolish then and look more foolish now.
Apple is doing the right thing; it's frustrating that it took so long for them to come to their senses on some of these baffling decisions and to publish their app store guidelines.
I still have the GV Mobile app in my iTunes, looking for an update soon!
Google Apps has voice for search - and the maps app in there has more options than the standard Google Maps app.
Besides the evident move to avoid FCC investigation... Could these changes be in preparation for the Windows Mobile 7 release?
This has nothing to do with anything other than undue corporate influence over the FTC.
Hopefully this well mean google maps navigation for iphone soon. Now we're just waiting for flash.
The Google app was never 'rejected' it was just never approved. It has been sitting in the queue for a year and a half. Hopefully, if these apps are going to be approved, Apple will just rubber stamp it and it will be released.
Well, NO, Google would have to resubmit a recompiled version for the latest iOS SDK...
Ahh, yes, forgot about that.
The Google app was never 'rejected' it was just never approved. It has been sitting in the queue for a year and a half. Hopefully, if these apps are going to be approved, Apple will just rubber stamp it and it will be released.
Well I was pretty brash in saying that this would never happen (months back), so I'll be the first to admit I was wrong if it comes about. I'm guessing the huge Android numbers are what's really at the bottom of all this.
While I agree there are huge leaps of logic in this thread, I think your take is off too. No offense.
The US market is big to Apple and if the tables were turned and the EU decided to get nasty, I could see Apple reacting the same way. Now, do I believe that this was in response to the FTC? I think it is a mixture of several items and yes that would be one of them.
I see this as more of a, Ooopps, we just learned some new information (Windows 7) and a case of the duh, we need to get this app store thing fixed before Win Mobile comes out and gives us a second case of heart burn.
Apple has to realize their unwillingness to put the iPhone on VZW in the US has placed them in a vulnerable position and that came at a price. I believe Apple did not see Android making the progress it has made.
Maybe I am off base too...
For turn by turn spoken navigation - MapQuest is quite good - perhaps not quite as slick or polished as Google Maps - and not as integrated into the overall iOS as Google (unless there is a way to change the default map software that I am missing). The latest update even rotates the map to follow you direction - includes auto recalculate. Does require network connection (Wi-Fi or cellular) to download maps on the fly - so not as fast perhaps or as easy to plan long or distant routes as TomTom for example - but smaller footprint on your device - and MapQuest is free.
Google Apps has voice for search - and the maps app in there has more options than the standard Google Maps app.
The Google app was never 'rejected' it was just never approved. It has been sitting in the queue for a year and a half.
That seems like a razor's edge of a fine distinction that had the same result as far as anyone could tell. It didn't sound like they were ever going to approve it if it weren't for the rule changes.
That seems like a razor's edge of a fine distinction that had the same result as far as anyone could tell. It didn't sound like they were ever going to approve it if it weren't for the rule changes.
Sorry, I was being facetious. I was making light of one of the excuses made at the time, that Apple shouldn't be questioned about rejecting the app because it was not rejected but still being examined and pending. IIRC, their response to the FCC actually said this. It was so ridiculous and showed such contempt, it was hilarious watching people actually accept this as a legitimate answer. Posters here actually used it in their defense "How can anyone blame Apple for rejecting it when the didn't actually reject it it". People actually got into very long winded debates about the distinctions implied between rejected, approved, pending, etc. Should dig out those old threads for a laugh.
Well I was pretty brash in saying that this would never happen (months back), so I'll be the first to admit I was wrong if it comes about. I'm guessing the huge Android numbers are what's really at the bottom of all this.
Lots of people thought it wouldn't happen. No reason to apologize for that. It was the people that parroted the excuses given as legitimate reasons that were wrong. Not one of the 'reasons' given stood up to examination at the time and even less so since. Now that it seems they will be approved, it is pretty obvious the only reason back then was to stick it to google. Any other reasons were silly and it was naive at best to have bought into them let alone seriously repeat them.
What is so great and fabulous about google voice in general? I've had it since they rolled it out and if you took it away tomorrow, I'm not sure I'd miss any of it. GV calls within the US use cell minutes, so what's the point? International calls? There's an app for that and it's named Skype.
For me, the main reasons to use Google Voice over alternatives like Skype is cost. SkypeOut (which gives you a phone number) isn't free. And most international call rates are cheaper (including free to Canada). While some calling cards offer lower rate, they aren't as easy to use.
Another compelling reason is SMS. With email forwarding, many iPhone texting apps (e.g., TextNow, TextFree) can fully integrate with Google Voice for texting. Other people will see GV phone # when you reply from these apps even. And I have more confidence in my Google Voice # being around (vs. # assigned from these texting apps).
You seem to have missed the point. Your last one about handing out your GV number instead of your cell number not being "the profile of an iPhone user" makes no sense at all. WTF does the origin of the phone number you provide have to do with your 'profile'? As far as it using up cell minutes, well, it depends on your plan. If you have unlimited local calling or My5 or unlimited domestic calling, then any GV (or any other call pass through service) is indeed a local call and will use your 'free' minutes. If you have unlimited incoming calls, then and call back service will also use your 'free' minutes. Various iterations of the GV service have used both of these. If you have a shitty plan, then GV might not make sense for you. You shouldn't use it, or try to get a better plan. For the number consolidation, if you have 2 phones, then it has some benefits. Even if you only have one phone, the level of control it provides for call management if impressive.
Re; your first sentence: instead of working yourself up to a lather and paraphrasing (wrongly) what I wrote, please re-read. If you make a valid counter-argument, I'll be happy to address it.
As for using your gv # as one on your calling circle numbers, I am aware of the scheme. My plan does not include a calling circle. I would have to pay extra for that so no, I would not be getting free gv calls--although I suppose it could be cost-effective for somes. But just not for me. Contrary to your opinion, this does not make my plan shitty nor does it mean that I need a "better" plan.
As for the call management and voice features, they were fun to play with for a time. I found glitches with some phones/carriers which I won't get into here (although it worked well with the iPhone and AT&T in general). Still, I prefer the visual voicemail built into the phone app over yet another app just to make a call or retrieve voicemail.
I found the voice quality consistently better with AT&T cellular than through gv voip. Same for skype...AT&T cellular is better for me. So I prefer that over voip calls. Maybe I'm in the minority who has good AT&T coverage.
And once again, transcripts were useless. Yet I see them being touted on google forums everywhere. Maybe people who call me don't speak clearly. I dunno.
In closing, that adds up to a whole lotta nothing for me as far as gv is concerned. YMMV, but don't make it seems as if I'm senile and have no clue about this. And in case you're wondering, my question was an honest one. What will the app do that google's web app does not? I never got to use the app (no iphone at the time) so maybe I'll try it once it's approved and be pleasantly surprised.
For me, the main reasons to use Google Voice over alternatives like Skype is cost. SkypeOut (which gives you a phone number) isn't free. And most international call rates are cheaper (including free to Canada). While some calling cards offer lower rate, they aren't as easy to use.
Another compelling reason is SMS. With email forwarding, many iPhone texting apps (e.g., TextNow, TextFree) can fully integrate with Google Voice for texting. Other people will see GV phone # when you reply from these apps even. And I have more confidence in my Google Voice # being around (vs. # assigned from these texting apps).
Thank you for your response. Yes, the SMS part is true and very valid. I prefer textfree for free SMS so I use that.
I only use skype for international outgoing so I have no number to pay for. I had not noticed that gv is cheaper to Europe (where I mostly call) than skype. It looked to be in the same ballpark last time I checked but I concede the point as I don't make it a habit of checking regularly. Basically, a $10 skype credit keeps me loaded for a lot of calls so I haven't had the motivation to look for cheaper.
Like I said to another poster, I will look at the app when it comes out. I like to revalaute all this stuff every so often.
Re; your first sentence: instead of working yourself up to a lather and paraphrasing (wrongly) what I wrote, please re-read. If you make a valid counter-argument, I'll be happy to address it.
As for using your gv # as one on your calling circle numbers, I am aware of the scheme. My plan does not include a calling circle. I would have to pay extra for that so no, I would not be getting free gv calls--although I suppose it could be cost-effective for somes. But just not for me. Contrary to your opinion, this does not make my plan shitty nor does it mean that I need a "better" plan.
As for the call management and voice features, they were fun to play with for a time. I found glitches with some phones/carriers which I won't get into here (although it worked well with the iPhone and AT&T in general). Still, I prefer the visual voicemail built into the phone app over yet another app just to make a call or retrieve voicemail.
I found the voice quality consistently better with AT&T cellular than through gv voip. Same for skype...AT&T cellular is better for me. So I prefer that over voip calls. Maybe I'm in the minority who has good AT&T coverage.
And once again, transcripts were useless. Yet I see them being touted on google forums everywhere. Maybe people who call me don't speak clearly. I dunno.
In closing, that adds up to a whole lotta nothing for me as far as gv is concerned. YMMV, but don't make it seems as if I'm senile and have no clue about this. And in case you're wondering, my question was an honest one. What will the app do that google's web app does not? I never got to use the app (no iphone at the time) so maybe I'll try it once it's approved and be pleasantly surprised.
Not lathered and not bothered. I don't think I incorrectly paraphrased anything you wrote, it stands on its own.
You were making it sound like things like it using cell minutes was a general problem for everyone and would be deal breakers. Perhaps they would be for you and some others but certainly not for all. By 'shitty' I mean most plans these says have some sort of 'free' minutes, whether that is calling circles, unlimited incoming or unlimited local. If yours doesn't, fine, perhaps it isn't shitty. My friends plan has nothing like that, has fewer minutes than mine and he pays more than me. To me, that is shitty. And for many, more cost effective and cheaper, if not free, is better than the full pop that the carriers charge. Transcripts really are useless.
As to you question what a native app provides that a web app does not:
1) faster load times
2) direct access to your local contacts instead of having to sync them from your desktop.
3) push notifications (voice mail, messages, etc)
4) Once GV releases its own VOIP client/API, then you have a skype alternative for purely data network calls, in and out.
5) Better integration with the touch interface. While webapps can do a lot here, they cannot meet native apps. That is exactly why Apple reversed the earlier position on any native apps at all.
I am sure there are other reasons. These are the ones that stand out to me.
Not lathered and not bothered. I don't think I incorrectly paraphrased anything you wrote, it stands on its own.
You were making it sound like things like it using cell minutes was a general problem for everyone and would be deal breakers. Perhaps they would be for you and some others but certainly not for all. By 'shitty' I mean most plans these says have some sort of 'free' minutes, whether that is calling circles, unlimited incoming or unlimited local. If yours doesn't, fine, perhaps it isn't shitty. My friends plan has nothing like that, has fewer minutes than mine and he pays more than me. To me, that is shitty. And for many, more cost effective and cheaper, if not free, is better than the full pop that the carriers charge. Transcripts really are useless.
As to you question what a native app provides that a web app does not:
1) faster load times
2) direct access to your local contacts instead of having to sync them from your desktop.
3) push notifications (voice mail, messages, etc)
4) Once GV releases its own VOIP client/API, then you have a skype alternative for purely data network calls, in and out.
5) Better integration with the touch interface. While webapps can do a lot here, they cannot meet native apps. That is exactly why Apple reversed the earlier position on any native apps at all.
I am sure there are other reasons. These are the ones that stand out to me.
Re the app differences, thanks for the details.
Re calling plans, are you on AT&T and would you mind telling me which plan? I will check it out to see if it would work better for me than what I have now.
Re the prepaid phone and number porting thing, perhaps I did not make my point well. In fact it is a very popular way of using gv and I tried it myself. (Abandoned it for reasons I won't get into here.) It goes like this:
Say you want the cheapest phone minutes, text and data and no contract. You have a few choices, mostly tracfone type stuff. Since there is no contract, you move to another carrier when something better comes along. These companies are notorious for horrible cs and often botch number porting so you don't even bother trying to port your number. You just take a new number each time. Since all your contacts use your gv number to call you anyway, you just add your new number to your gv account and presto! You don't miss a beat. Can you see where under that scenario I might say that this is not the profile of an iPhone user? There was nothing derogatory in my statement.
Cheers.