I get some of the of things that are troubling about Google Voice; the same problem keeps popping up with Skype, or any other software ported from the PC you can use to chat. Talks done using these apps show up as data only, instead of precious 'call' minutes, on your bill. That is cheaper, so phone companies get less money, which sounds bad, right?
Well, technically they're the exact same thing (no real difference, both manifest as digital data packets in the cell phone data stream), but you tend to spend a lot more money as long as they call it a 'call' - shame on you, btw, for allowing such nonsense overcharge to go on for so long.
Companies circumvented this by allowing applications like Skype to function over a WiFi network only. The argument is that calls on Skype take 3G bandwidth that should go to calls on phones. (Again: both are the same digital data packets... it's like arguing you should buy apples from Verizon only, because apples from trees are bad.)
But that got countered with the MiFi now. It's this wonderful device which your phones detect (and connect to) as a WiFi router (which it is), and which, in turn, connects to the internet via 3G - so suddenly Skype works on your iPhone as originally intended, using your 3G connection.
Neat, huh? But this was not the reason why Google Voice was removed from iPhones.
The problem is, Google Voice managed to pull something call service providers and cell phone manifacturers never did: portability.
With Voice, you actually don't need to move contact numbers between your old phone and your new one, your office phone and your home one; and you also circumvent the call forwarding hell. Voice offers an online (read: synced) contact list, and allows settings up which calls should ring on which phone...
...which alone would be a game breaking solution. But there's more. Voicemail is stored online as well - lose your phone, quit your provider, do whatever to mess with your voicemail, it's still available online (along with all those precious contact numbers). All you need is an internet connection and a browser to check them.
Seriously. They even do transcripts of the received messages. You can _read_ your voicemail online, which is a lot more faster than just waiting for your sister to finally get to the point. I guess it's also an invaluable help for people with hearing problems, as it's getting all-too-common to be contacted on the phone these days. But yeah, Apple's right, screw them! Or, wait...
These are real, vital features everyone who ever became a sitting duck because of a lost / drained cell phone will surely appreciate. Seriously, imagine all your phone numbers disappearing because your iPhone burst into flames (they do that). Voice helps you prevent that (not the burning though). It also filters your ex to voice mail. And your clients will reach you on whichever phone you decide to allow them to ring, as long as you give them your Google Voice number. It can even ring you on all your phones, including land lines.
Which is a problem, I guess, when one of those phones ringing is not your AT&T-powered iPhone. For some, at least.
But instead, what Apple claims to be the problem are similar functions, and the lack of assurance customer data will be in good hands. To quote the SNL folks: Oh, really?
Shared, synced contact list, the ability to effectively handle multiple phones, the ability to create customized call forwarding / voice mail rules on a case-by-case basis, voice mail messages and their transcriptions available online? Exactly which iPhone button does that?
Also, Voice requires an existing Google profile, and a sign-up for the service. Where exactly are the data concerns here, when you've already provided those personal details for your GMail account already? (Or iGoogle, or Blogger, or...) Why weren't they concerned about your Skype account when they allowed that (which also needs pretty much the same data during registration)? Or your Facebook profile?
The short answer is, Apple is feeding the FCC bullsh.t about the reasons for the rejection; and the only viable reason I can come up with is that they're trying to kill Google Voice by not allowing it to reach critical mass (which is when even your grandparents start using it, because it's so popular).
But for portability, Google Voice is clearly the best answer, unmatched by anything Apple or AT&T can provide, simply because it is not restrained. Which brings me back to my very first line: I really don't get why Apple thinks they can just defeat Google Voice like it never happened.
Especially since it's been on for a while now - hell, even I'm invited, and I live in Hungary, where it's absolutely unavailable.
Homework: spam Apple demanding Voice on your iPhone now. And if you don't have one - well, I can't honestly recommend buying simply because of this. Any other phone will be a lot more painless to use, as long as they allow these features.
Welcome to the 21st century, where we no longer memorize phone numbers, but it's not an issue, as only Apple customers lose them when their phone goes south.
No comments:
Post a Comment