There needs to be a greater push on web apps when services are provided that require network/internet access. While I agree that this move ruffles the feathers of developers of native apps, it can help push toward the holy grail of cloud computing that we've heard for years is coming any day now.
I can't help but think that once there is a good web interface for google voice that many are going to look back at this event for a couple seconds to reflect and then move on knowing that it's not as big of a deal to customers as it's being made out to be.
I think any perceived friction between Apple and Google is just something they want to promote. Jobs originally wanted all iPhone apps to be web-based. This seems like an effective way to put pressure on AT&T, while allowing Google to continue along the same path, but via web-apps, until the Apple Apps Store is less restricted due to Apple's contractual obligations.
It would be a bit of a compromise but Google might get an app approved that had the sole functionality of receiving push notifications from the OS with a button that opened up Safari and logged you into the web page app. That could take care of the IM part and skirt around the 17+ rating since the browser would not be embedded. Although they would still need to overcome the voice part since the microphone on the iPhone is not accessible from Safari as far as I know.
They already have a Google app that automatically launches you to the particular web app of your choice. Currently Google Voice is not part of that app. Theoretically they could build the push notification into that app, and give you the option for notifications for other Google Web apps as well, such as GMail.
It would be a bit of a compromise but Google might get an app approved that had the sole functionality of receiving push notifications from the OS with a button that opened up Safari and logged you into the web page app. That could take care of the IM part and skirt around the 17+ rating since the browser would not be embedded. Although they would still need to overcome the voice part since the microphone on the iPhone is not accessible from Safari as far as I know.
Regardless of how it works out, there no need to access the mic. All calls come and go through the iPhone phone app.
Regardless of how it works out, there no need to access the mic. All calls come and go through the iPhone phone app.
Beat me to it, thanks. Quite a few people still seem to think Google Voice is an end-user VOIP tool. So much misinformation, so little time.
A safari app would hold me over until Google/Apple/AT&T work this out. Pretty disappointing if they don't.
All I need in the GV web app is a bookmarkable page with my Favorites I want to call. Maybe a keypad. Clearly, the texting will be very important to many people, I'm not one of them. Anything they can come up with is welcome. The current page works but features plenty of shortcomings.
Stupid question, I am not in the US, is Google voice fundamentally different from Skype, iChat, IM? Or is this just Google trying to outdo Skype with more focus on web-only applications (and tying it together with all their other free services)?
Apple's iphone is a GREAT product but, like all Apple products, it is a closed system. It took all but 5 days for the brain-trust at Google to stick their collective middle fingers up at Apple and asked them to sit and twirl on a web app that has all the functionality of the Google Voice iphone app but will run on ALL platforms.
Now if only Google could provide better cell coverage than att, I'd be set.
Stupid question, I am not in the US, is Google voice fundamentally different from Skype, iChat, IM? Or is this just Google trying to outdo Skype with more focus on web-only applications (and tying it together with all their other free services)?
In the USA, you can only use Skype if connected to a WiFi hot-spot. Google Voice promises IP phone capabilities on a browser via 3G or Edge connections. Big trouble for ATT here.....
Stupid question, I am not in the US, is Google voice fundamentally different from Skype, iChat, IM? Or is this just Google trying to outdo Skype with more focus on web-only applications (and tying it together with all their other free services)?
The calls don't go over the end user's internet connection. They can be initiated on the web or through an app, but the actual call uses landlines and cell phones on the ends. Unless you call a voip user.
The texting is free. You can choose to have the text messages forwarded to a mobile phone, for which you may be billed by your carrier. Texting is not free on Skype.
There are all kinds of rules and filters you can place on incoming calls. Voice mails can be transcribed and delivered as email. All free.
When someone calls your GV number you can have it ring multiple phones or go straight to voice mail. You can set schedules of what phones should ring. You can have custom greetings for different contacts.
USA calls are free. International are 2 cents a minute for calling landlines in many countries.
It's a completely different beast than Skype. And it highlights that the major US carriers have been sitting on their hands while voip providers, Skype, and now Google provide far more compelling features than they have.
Oh wait, AT&T provides the cellular service and they've openly admitted to blocking apps like SlingPlayer from using their network.
Not so.. AT&T told the nice man from FCC that they don't have any say over the day to day App Store policies, procedures, rejections, etc....
AT&T wouldn't LIE to the FCC now would they?!?!
Fact is if AT&T gets away with the crap they've been pulling then the FCC is the biggest joke of a government agency in the history of the US! Given the rest of the government, it takes a lot to earn that unique distinction.
In the USA, you can only use Skype if connected to a WiFi hot-spot. Google Voice promises IP phone capabilities on a browser via 3G or Edge connections. Big trouble for ATT here.....
Not even close. You are talking about VOIP. GV is not VOIP.
It's doubtful that Apple will block a Web App since even hardcore Apple supporters would probably be adverse to Apple actively censoring the internet.
Do not underestimate the lengths Apple apologist will go to in order to defend everything that Apple does.
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod. Anybody who wants a video iPod is a whiner.
Apple should not allow third party developers to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications. Web apps are really SWEET. Anybody who wants native iPhone applications is a whiner.
Apple will not make a 3G iPhone. Nobody cares about 3G. Anybody who wants 3G is a whiner.
Apple will not add GPS to the iPhone. Nobody cares about GPS. Anybody who wants GPS is a whiner.
Apple will not add copy and paste to the iPhone. Nobody cares about copy and paste. Anybody who wants copy and paste is a whiner.
Apple will not make a multi button mouse. Nobody cares about a multi button mouse. Anybody who wants a multi button mouse is a whiner.
Apple will never switch to Intel processors. Intel is evil. Nobody cares about Intel processors. Anybody who wants Intel processors is a whiner.
Wow, haven't seen that old chestnut for ages, did it take long to copy and paste it?
You must be pretty obsessed if you saved it somewhere even more so if you memorized it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
Do not underestimate the lengths Apple apologist will go to in order to defend everything that Apple does.
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod. Anybody who wants a video iPod is a whiner.
Apple should not allow third party developers to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications. Web apps are really SWEET. Anybody who wants native iPhone applications is a whiner.
Apple will not make a 3G iPhone. Nobody cares about 3G. Anybody who wants 3G is a whiner.
Apple will not add GPS to the iPhone. Nobody cares about GPS. Anybody who wants GPS is a whiner.
Apple will not add copy and paste to the iPhone. Nobody cares about copy and paste. Anybody who wants copy and paste is a whiner.
Apple will not make a multi button mouse. Nobody cares about a multi button mouse. Anybody who wants a multi button mouse is a whiner.
Apple will never switch to Intel processors. Intel is evil. Nobody cares about Intel processors. Anybody who wants Intel processors is a whiner.
AT&T's vague denials don't convince me. Who cares if the iPhone has Google voice? Apple would love to have another major app on the iPhone, and they partner with Google on several things already (Maps, Safari search, GMail integration, etc.).
It's AT&T who cares about Google voice. If they REALLY don't object, then I hope to see the app back soon
It would be great if the investigation burns both Apple and AT&T, and makes it a harder for future partners to make this kind of demand on Apple.
It would be great if you guys really understand the size of Apple and Google --- when compare to carriers, hollywood studios and major music labels.
Yes, AT&T is about the same size as Apple and Google. But that's about it. The rest of the carriers worldwide are much smaller than Apple and Google. In terms of market capitalization, Apple and Google are individually twice as big as the "big bad evil red" Verizon. It's Apple and Google that are bossing the carriers around.
When Steve Jobs talks about Apple's "fight" against the major music labels in the itunes stores --- you have to realize that you can buy one of the 4 major music labels, Warrner Music Group, for under $800 million US. That's compared to some of these silicon valley billionaires who spent $400 milllion US to build their supersized yachts. Throw in a few of their personal gulfstream jets --- their "toy" collection is enough to buy a major music labels.
The calls don't go over the end user's internet connection. They can be initiated on the web or through an app, but the actual call uses landlines and cell phones on the ends. Unless you call a voip user.
The texting is free. You can choose to have the text messages forwarded to a mobile phone, for which you may be billed by your carrier. Texting is not free on Skype.
There are all kinds of rules and filters you can place on incoming calls. Voice mails can be transcribed and delivered as email. All free.
When someone calls your GV number you can have it ring multiple phones or go straight to voice mail. You can set schedules of what phones should ring. You can have custom greetings for different contacts.
USA calls are free. International are 2 cents a minute for calling landlines in many countries.
It's a completely different beast than Skype. And it highlights that the major US carriers have been sitting on their hands while voip providers, Skype, and now Google provide far more compelling features than they have.
As I see this now, GV combines aspects of Skype (can be used for VoIP from computer to computer, your comment about VoIP users) with that of a calling card (you call a local number) and call forwarding and routing. Most telephone companies offer forwarding and routing to multiple phones already but it is generally (a) expensive and (b) the user interface is not that great.
Apart from the general cost savings of VoIP/Calling card type international routing, Google Voice seems to add value to the Skype model by connecting it better to traditional phones.
Comments
I can't help but think that once there is a good web interface for google voice that many are going to look back at this event for a couple seconds to reflect and then move on knowing that it's not as big of a deal to customers as it's being made out to be.
It would be a bit of a compromise but Google might get an app approved that had the sole functionality of receiving push notifications from the OS with a button that opened up Safari and logged you into the web page app. That could take care of the IM part and skirt around the 17+ rating since the browser would not be embedded. Although they would still need to overcome the voice part since the microphone on the iPhone is not accessible from Safari as far as I know.
They already have a Google app that automatically launches you to the particular web app of your choice. Currently Google Voice is not part of that app. Theoretically they could build the push notification into that app, and give you the option for notifications for other Google Web apps as well, such as GMail.
It would be a bit of a compromise but Google might get an app approved that had the sole functionality of receiving push notifications from the OS with a button that opened up Safari and logged you into the web page app. That could take care of the IM part and skirt around the 17+ rating since the browser would not be embedded. Although they would still need to overcome the voice part since the microphone on the iPhone is not accessible from Safari as far as I know.
Regardless of how it works out, there no need to access the mic. All calls come and go through the iPhone phone app.
Regardless of how it works out, there no need to access the mic. All calls come and go through the iPhone phone app.
Beat me to it, thanks. Quite a few people still seem to think Google Voice is an end-user VOIP tool. So much misinformation, so little time.
A safari app would hold me over until Google/Apple/AT&T work this out. Pretty disappointing if they don't.
All I need in the GV web app is a bookmarkable page with my Favorites I want to call. Maybe a keypad. Clearly, the texting will be very important to many people, I'm not one of them. Anything they can come up with is welcome. The current page works but features plenty of shortcomings.
Now if only Google could provide better cell coverage than att, I'd be set.
Bravo, Google! Bravo!
Stupid question, I am not in the US, is Google voice fundamentally different from Skype, iChat, IM? Or is this just Google trying to outdo Skype with more focus on web-only applications (and tying it together with all their other free services)?
In the USA, you can only use Skype if connected to a WiFi hot-spot. Google Voice promises IP phone capabilities on a browser via 3G or Edge connections. Big trouble for ATT here.....
Stupid question, I am not in the US, is Google voice fundamentally different from Skype, iChat, IM? Or is this just Google trying to outdo Skype with more focus on web-only applications (and tying it together with all their other free services)?
The calls don't go over the end user's internet connection. They can be initiated on the web or through an app, but the actual call uses landlines and cell phones on the ends. Unless you call a voip user.
The texting is free. You can choose to have the text messages forwarded to a mobile phone, for which you may be billed by your carrier. Texting is not free on Skype.
There are all kinds of rules and filters you can place on incoming calls. Voice mails can be transcribed and delivered as email. All free.
When someone calls your GV number you can have it ring multiple phones or go straight to voice mail. You can set schedules of what phones should ring. You can have custom greetings for different contacts.
USA calls are free. International are 2 cents a minute for calling landlines in many countries.
It's a completely different beast than Skype. And it highlights that the major US carriers have been sitting on their hands while voip providers, Skype, and now Google provide far more compelling features than they have.
Oh wait, AT&T provides the cellular service and they've openly admitted to blocking apps like SlingPlayer from using their network.
Not so.. AT&T told the nice man from FCC that they don't have any say over the day to day App Store policies, procedures, rejections, etc....
AT&T wouldn't LIE to the FCC now would they?!?!
Fact is if AT&T gets away with the crap they've been pulling then the FCC is the biggest joke of a government agency in the history of the US! Given the rest of the government, it takes a lot to earn that unique distinction.
In the USA, you can only use Skype if connected to a WiFi hot-spot. Google Voice promises IP phone capabilities on a browser via 3G or Edge connections. Big trouble for ATT here.....
Not even close. You are talking about VOIP. GV is not VOIP.
They should also force Google to release this beta software to everyone on earth.
Even places where there are no phone carriers, after all they only need "dumb" pipes.
It's doubtful that Apple will block a Web App since even hardcore Apple supporters would probably be adverse to Apple actively censoring the internet.
Do not underestimate the lengths Apple apologist will go to in order to defend everything that Apple does.
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod. Anybody who wants a video iPod is a whiner.
Apple should not allow third party developers to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications. Web apps are really SWEET. Anybody who wants native iPhone applications is a whiner.
Apple will not make a 3G iPhone. Nobody cares about 3G. Anybody who wants 3G is a whiner.
Apple will not add GPS to the iPhone. Nobody cares about GPS. Anybody who wants GPS is a whiner.
Apple will not add copy and paste to the iPhone. Nobody cares about copy and paste. Anybody who wants copy and paste is a whiner.
Apple will not make a multi button mouse. Nobody cares about a multi button mouse. Anybody who wants a multi button mouse is a whiner.
Apple will never switch to Intel processors. Intel is evil. Nobody cares about Intel processors. Anybody who wants Intel processors is a whiner.
You must be pretty obsessed if you saved it somewhere even more so if you memorized it.
Do not underestimate the lengths Apple apologist will go to in order to defend everything that Apple does.
Apple will not make a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on an iPod. Anybody who wants a video iPod is a whiner.
Apple should not allow third party developers to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native iPhone applications. Web apps are really SWEET. Anybody who wants native iPhone applications is a whiner.
Apple will not make a 3G iPhone. Nobody cares about 3G. Anybody who wants 3G is a whiner.
Apple will not add GPS to the iPhone. Nobody cares about GPS. Anybody who wants GPS is a whiner.
Apple will not add copy and paste to the iPhone. Nobody cares about copy and paste. Anybody who wants copy and paste is a whiner.
Apple will not make a multi button mouse. Nobody cares about a multi button mouse. Anybody who wants a multi button mouse is a whiner.
Apple will never switch to Intel processors. Intel is evil. Nobody cares about Intel processors. Anybody who wants Intel processors is a whiner.
If this will be a web-based app, won't it get an "Adult" rating and require you to be 18 or older to get it?
What, to save a bookmark in Safari?
No, if the app accesses web-based content, Apple now automatically classifies them as for adults only.
Why is Google under investigation for their app being blocked?
Because Google also has its own cell phone platform, its own cell phone app store and it can reject apps.
AT&T's vague denials don't convince me. Who cares if the iPhone has Google voice? Apple would love to have another major app on the iPhone, and they partner with Google on several things already (Maps, Safari search, GMail integration, etc.).
It's AT&T who cares about Google voice. If they REALLY don't object, then I hope to see the app back soon
It would be great if the investigation burns both Apple and AT&T, and makes it a harder for future partners to make this kind of demand on Apple.
It would be great if you guys really understand the size of Apple and Google --- when compare to carriers, hollywood studios and major music labels.
Yes, AT&T is about the same size as Apple and Google. But that's about it. The rest of the carriers worldwide are much smaller than Apple and Google. In terms of market capitalization, Apple and Google are individually twice as big as the "big bad evil red" Verizon. It's Apple and Google that are bossing the carriers around.
When Steve Jobs talks about Apple's "fight" against the major music labels in the itunes stores --- you have to realize that you can buy one of the 4 major music labels, Warrner Music Group, for under $800 million US. That's compared to some of these silicon valley billionaires who spent $400 milllion US to build their supersized yachts. Throw in a few of their personal gulfstream jets --- their "toy" collection is enough to buy a major music labels.
The calls don't go over the end user's internet connection. They can be initiated on the web or through an app, but the actual call uses landlines and cell phones on the ends. Unless you call a voip user.
The texting is free. You can choose to have the text messages forwarded to a mobile phone, for which you may be billed by your carrier. Texting is not free on Skype.
There are all kinds of rules and filters you can place on incoming calls. Voice mails can be transcribed and delivered as email. All free.
When someone calls your GV number you can have it ring multiple phones or go straight to voice mail. You can set schedules of what phones should ring. You can have custom greetings for different contacts.
USA calls are free. International are 2 cents a minute for calling landlines in many countries.
It's a completely different beast than Skype. And it highlights that the major US carriers have been sitting on their hands while voip providers, Skype, and now Google provide far more compelling features than they have.
As I see this now, GV combines aspects of Skype (can be used for VoIP from computer to computer, your comment about VoIP users) with that of a calling card (you call a local number) and call forwarding and routing. Most telephone companies offer forwarding and routing to multiple phones already but it is generally (a) expensive and (b) the user interface is not that great.
Apart from the general cost savings of VoIP/Calling card type international routing, Google Voice seems to add value to the Skype model by connecting it better to traditional phones.