Tag Archives | Google Voice

Google Voice Without a New Number

Posted by Harry McCracken on October 27, 2009 at 12:45 am

Google VoiceUntil now, every story praising Google’s Google Voice phone service has had to explain one significant catch: All of its useful features required you to train your friends, relatives, and acquaintances to forget whatever phone number you’d given them and to start using a new one assigned to you by Google.

Now there’s a workaround: Google has announced a new version of Google Voice that doesn’t require you to change your phone number. Once you’ve configured your phone number to use Google Voice, you pretty much get one specific part of of the service: its excellent voicemail service. You can check your voicemail online (with speech-to-text transcriptions) and play different voicemail greetings for different callers. You can also make cheap international calls. But you don’t get a bunch of the other features that make Google Voice Google Voice, including the ability to have incoming calls ring all your phone and to record calls.

Google is working on another option that may beat either of the two existing ones: the ability to port your existing number from a traditional carrier to Google Voice, turning any phone number into a full-blown Google Voice number. In the meantime, this new option is a good way to dabble with Google Voice without committing yourself to it or putting much effort into the process–although you’ll still have to request an invite to the service’s private beta and wait until Google ushers you in.

One comment

AT&T and Google at Odds Over Google Voice–This Time For Realz

Posted by Harry McCracken on September 26, 2009 at 1:44 am

Rock 'Em Rock 'Em RobotsAT&T may have played no part in Apple’s rejection infinite pondering of Google’s Google Voice app for iPhone, but that doesn’t mean that the phone carrier is a Google Voice fan. Far from it, apparently–the company has written a letter to the FTC complaining about Google Voice’s blocking of certain phone numbers operated by rural carriers (including adult services) for which it would otherwise have to pay unusually high fees to the rural phone companies. As a common carrier, AT&T is required to put these calls through even though they cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Here’s AT&T’s letter in its entirety:

AT&T argues that (A) Google Voice is essentially similar to traditional phone service and so should play by the same rules; (B) even if you consider it to be an application rather than phone service, FCC policy says that consumers are entitled to competition among networks, applications and services, and it’s not fair competition if Google Voice has an advantage; and (C) by blocking certain calls that would cost it a lot of money to connect, Google is violating the philosophy of net neutrality which it’s famous for enthusiastically supporting.

Google has speedily published a blog post responding to AT&T’s complaints. The gist: (A) Google Voice is a free application and therefore not required to follow common-carrier rules or basically listen to the FCC at all; (B) it’s not a replacement for a traditional phone service such as that offered by AT&T; and (C) it’s still in private beta.

I’m no expert on telecommunications policy. But to my layman’s ears, neither company’s argument is instantly compelling. AT&T’s letter is dripping with needless, grating snark (it’s not often that you see one large company accuse another of being “noisome” in a public venue). It doesn’t explain why it thinks its services and Google Voice are largely similar given that Google Voice is a sort of overlay for traditional phone service rather than a replacement for it. And wasn’t AT&T just insisting that net neutrality policy shouldn’t apply to wireless service, thereby undercutting its new stance that if there’s going to be net neutrality, it must be observed uniformly?

Google, meanwhile, doesn’t actually explain why it’s reasonable that Google Voice should play by different rules than AT&T–it just says that it does. Nor does it spell out why it thinks that the fact that Google Voice is free and (currently) only available in a limited fashion are germane to the discussion at hand.

Google does extend an olive branch of sorts by stating that it thinks the FCC rules that leave AT&T and other common carriers paying through the nose for these rural phone company services should be reformed. Maybe that’s the ultimate solution here: Prevent the little phone companies from gouging the big ones for porn calls. As a customer of AT&T who uses Google Voice, I know where my self-interest lies: I want the two companies’ services to work well together, and for Google Voice to retain its attractive current price ($0.00 a month).

Are you taking sides in this squabble?

4 comments

Google’s Google Voice FCC Letter: Uncensored!

Posted by Harry McCracken on September 18, 2009 at 11:02 am

Last month, Apple, AT&T, and Google all responded to the FCC’s request for information on the circumstances regarding Apple’s failure to approve some Google applications for release on the iPhone App Store. The letters became public, and helped to explain what was going on. Except that Google chose to redact its answer to a really important question in the version of the letter released for general consumption:

Google Redacted

Several people filed Freedom of Information Act requests to see the unexpurgated letter, and rather than fight the requests, Google has decided to accept publication of the full letter. Here’s the section we didn’t see before:

Google letter to FCC

On one level, there’s nothing surprising here: In Apple’s own letter to the FCC, it said it hadn’t approved Google Voice largely because it “altered(d)” and “replace(d)” placed Apple’s own phone-related features with ones designed by Google. (Alter and replace probably aren’t the right words here: Google Voice would be an additional way to make calls on the iPhone, and Apple’s features would remain unchanged. But you get the idea.)

But here’s one bombshell: Apple’s letter denied that the company had rejected Google Voice and said that it was still “studying” and “ponder(ing)” the app. Google’s letter, however, says that Apple told it that Google Voice had been rejected, period. The real-world difference is pretty much moot, since an application that enters a permanent limbo of being studied and pondered is no more useful to the world than one that’s been rejected. But it still seems to be a fundamental disagreement on a matter of fact: Apple says it didn’t reject the app, and Google says it did.

Also interesting: Google says the matter went all the way up to Phil Schiller. That would remove the possibility that Google Voice ran into trouble because of hasty and/or inconsistent decision-making by lower-level employees involved in the App Store. Apple knew what it was doing.

Just how directly was Google CEO’s exodus from the Apple board tied to this disagreement? Your guess is as good as mine, but if Schmidt were still on the board today it would be particularly strange given the Rashomon-like situation that’s developed.

As I’ve said before, I want a phone that lets me replace standard functionality with new and useful alternatives. Apple says that doing so may confuse iPhone owners, but I have a hunch that most of them are smart enough to deal with it–and hey, if they’re baffled, they can always delete the app in question.

I continue to think that Apple will eventually come to the conclusion that a more open-minded approach to iPhone app approval is in its own best interest. I just hope it decides that sooner rather than later, and without further nudging by the FCC.

Accepting and releasing Google Voice in the form Google originally submitted it wouldn’t address the larger issues here, but it would be an awfully good start…

15 comments

RingCentral: It’s Like Google Voice for the iPhone!

Posted by Harry McCracken on August 24, 2009 at 11:57 am

Fortune’s Philip Elmer-DeWitt points out that Apple long ago approved an iPhone app that’s very much like Google Voice and presents all the issues that it says it doesn’t like about that application: RingCentral.

The app is called RingCentral Mobile and not only does it perform most of the same functions as the Google (GOOG) app that’s making all the headlines — universal telephone number, voicemail, dial-by-name directory, click-to-call, call forwarding, answering rules, call screening, music on hold, etc. — it was the template on which both Google Voice, and its predecessor, GrandCentral, were built.

As Elmer-DeWitt says, it’s hard to imagine that Google Voice being a Google product didn’t play a part in Apple’s unwillingness to approve it in a prompt fashion. (RingCentral’s from a venerable but small company.) And we already knew that one of the most significant issues with the App Store approval process is that it’s deeply inconsistent.

4 comments

Whose iPhone is It Anyway?

Posted by Harry McCracken on August 21, 2009 at 6:05 pm

tugofwarThe great silence is over. Apple has responded to the FCC’s questions about the Google Voice app in particular and the iPhone App Store in general–and it not only sent its answers to the feds, but published them on the Web. It’s the first time the company has talked about App Store procedures and processes in public. And Engadget has posted the letters Google and AT&T sent to the FCC. All of a sudden, we know way more about what’s been going on behind the scenes.

Some of the tidbits in the three letters reconfirm stuff that was already known, such as Sling’s SlingPlayer being crippled because of concerns over network congestion in general and violation of AT&T’s terms of service in specific. Others make the obvious official, such as AT&T’s statement that it does not like the idea of VoIP services such as Skype running over its 3G network. Apple’s statement emphasizes the good news about App Store approval–95% of apps get the okay within two weeks–and stresses that most rejections are because of bugs. It also says that the App Store gets 8500 new apps and updates a week, that there are more than 40 full-time reviewers, and that every app is checked by two reviewers. Assuming that the average reviewer puts in a ten hour workday (not including lunch) that would mean that he or she must crank through around eight apps an hour–which means that the average inspection must be profoundly superficial, and that most must involve snap judgements that may be prone to error. (We kind of knew that already.)

Continue Reading →

24 comments

The No-Google-Voice-on-iPhone Uprising Continues

Posted by Harry McCracken on July 31, 2009 at 9:07 am

TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington says (in a post that’s loading only sporadically for me) that he’s dumping his iPhone for a T-Mobile myTouch 3G over Apple’s rejection of Google’s Google Voice app. Developer Steven Frank is similarly irate. Six Apart’s Anil Dash is calm but concerned.

I’m glad to see that discontent over the Google Voice situation hasn’t died down yet. If Apple continues with the secretive and capricious attitude it’s had towards app approval long enough, the day is going to come when it makes a move that angers enough people that it’ll have to reassess its practices. If the Google Voice situation turns out to be that tipping point, it’ll be good news for iPhone users–and, I’m convinced, for Apple itself in the long run. There are certainly countless examples of consumers forcing companies to do things that are in the companies’ best interest–call it the New Coke Backlash phenomenon. And even Apple usually responds when enough of its customers are seething.

I remain enough of an optimist to believe that Apple will get all this right sooner or later. I even think it’s possible that it’s listening to the discontent right now and will decide to let the Google Voice app onto the App Store after all in the not-too-distant future.

7 comments

No Google Voice Apps for the iPhone

Posted by Jason Meserve on July 28, 2009 at 9:23 am

Google Voice LogoGoogle Voice aficionados–of which there are more by the day–were excited to see mobile apps for the service launch for Android and BlackBerry devices. The general consensus: A similar iPhone app must be right around the corner. Not so fast.

The unofficial GV Mobile app written by Sean Kovac has been rejected by Apple or, more likely, AT&T, according to Mashable and Kovac. GV Mobile lets Google Voice account holders dial numbers through the address book or keypad, send SMS messages, retrieve call history data and take calls on a different phone–all functions the Google Voice web site offers. Google too had its official Voice application rejected by Apple, according to TechCrunch.

The problem with Kovac’s app, Apple says, is that this duplicates functionality of the iPhone and therefore is not needed. “Richard Chipman from Apple just called–he told me they’re removing GV Mobile from the App Store due to it duplicating features that the iPhone comes with (Dialer, SMS, etc). He didn’t actually specify which features, although I assume the whole app in general,” Kovac wrote on his blog.

Continue Reading →

4 comments

Google Releases Google Voice App for BlackBerry and Android. Now Let’s Hope It Releases Google Voice.

Posted by Harry McCracken on July 15, 2009 at 12:08 pm

Google Voice LogoGoogle Voice just got more useful for BlackBerry and Android users: Google has released apps for both platforms that provide access to the service’s features. Sounds like the most significant aspect is that they make dialing outgoing calls using your Google Voice number a whole lot easier. (If you use your phone’s “real” number to call folks, they can use Caller ID to see the number and may add it to their address books, thereby making it a lot tougher to train the world to use your Google Voice number as your only phone number.)

Here’s a video from Google explaining the new apps:

iPhone users (like me) don’t have an app yet–we can access Google Voice from Safari, but only via a pretty basic interface. But over at TechCrunch, Michael Arrington says that Google Voice’s Craig Walker told him that an iPhone app is in the works. Once it arrives,  I can try being All Google Voice, All the Time. (For business calls, that is–I’ll bet I’m not the only proprietor of a very small business who uses my phone-company phone number for personal calls, and my Google Voice number for work stuff.)

The most important remaining question about Google Voice remains the same: WHEN IS GOOGLE PLANNING TO OPEN UP THE SERVICE TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO’D LIKE TO USE IT?!? Google still isn’t saying. But the fact that it’s rolling out these apps and steadily letting folks who requested invites months ago in is a good sign that the rest of world won’t have to wait forever. I hope. (I can’t think of another Web service that’s had such a high profile and received so many upgrades while remaining available only to a smalllish group of users.)

5 comments

Google Voice for Any Phone Number?

Posted by Harry McCracken on June 15, 2009 at 1:35 am

Google VoiceOver at TechCrunch, Michael Arrington has reported the intriguing tidbit that Google is working on letting users of its Google Voice phone service use phone-number portability to transfer their number from whatever carrier they’re using to Google Voice. In both its original form as GrandCentral and still-in-private-beta relaunch as Google Voice, the service has made you sign up for a new phone number. That’s not a dealbreaker–if you’ve ever called Technologizer’s business number, you’ve dialed a Google Voice number–but a lot of folks would be much more likely to try Google Voice if they didn’t have to inform the world that their phone number had changed. And the service’s help system appears to confirm TechCrunch’s report.

Using existing phone numbers with Google Voice-like services isn’t a new idea–for instance, SkyDeck and Grasshopper, both of which overlap with Google Voice’s features, already let you do it. But Google Voice is the most comprehensive service of this sort: It can ring multiple phones at once, it turns your voicemail into text and lets you get it over the Web or via SMS, it lets you screen and record calls, and a whole lot more. And everything’s free except for international calls (which are cheap). All in all, it’s pretty spectacular.

Arrington also says that Google is working on a way to make Google Voice users’ calls show up on recipients’ Caller ID as the Google Voice number, rather than the primary phone number associated with the phone that made the call. That would solve another fairly significant problem with Google Voice, which is that it’s tough to hide the fact that Google Voice numbers are virtual, and that you’ve still got a real (if in many ways less useful) phone number that you can be reached at.

Of course, the one Google Voice feature that most people are most curious about is a simple one: general availability. Except for a brief period a long time ago when GrandCentral let anybody sign up, the service has been stuck in one of longest private betas I can remember. If the day comes–soon, I hope–when Google lets anyone sign up for Google Voice for free, I’m betting that it’ll prompt one of the most intense mad rushes of new users into a Google service to date.

4 comments