4 ms·

Hm, I'm not sure they're trying to protect the wireless carriers. When an Android device makes a Google Voice call, it works the same way any call would, except

Hm, I'm not sure they're trying to protect the wireless carriers. When an Android device makes a Google Voice call, it works the same way any call would, except that it dials the Google Voice number first, which then connects you to whomever you're dialing. The call is never routed over the Internet.

mieses 16y ago
"works the same way any call would" is the problem. The Google Voice app could easily work better. Why doesn't it? You do realize that it's possible to initiate a call through the Google Voice website, which then rings a soft-client (Gizmo or Sipdroid)? This scenario obviates the need for a phone line or a wireless voice plan. Google and the carriers are not morons. The decision to limit the Google Voice Android app was intentional. A computer does not need to have a voice plan to browse the Google Voice website and initiate a Google Voice call. The official Google Voice Andorid app, however, does require a voice plan to initiate the call. It's an artificial restriction. 3rd party Google Voice dialers on the Android Market, including Evan Charlton's unofficial "GV" app, are able to place GV calls from an Android device without voice service, presumably by interacting with an undocumented API or via http requests to the Google Voice web site. Blocking this feature is an example of how Google bent over for the wireless carriers at the expense of their users and contradicts Google's position on good/evil. Curious how it can be spun in any other way..
- mkelly 16y ago
  I disagree that it's evil. If you're a company doing business with other big, powerful companies (telcos), you can't just attack their business model and expect to keep doing business with them unless you're in a really strong position. Say Google removed this restriction, and AT&T et al just stopped supporting Android phones due to some unspecified "technical issue". Then where are we? It's undesirable, definitely. Evil, I don't think so. Evil, IMO, is if Google can remove the restrictions, and doesn't.
  - mieses 16y ago
    Oh, I see. A decision that is motivated by convenience, i.e., business and profit, is not evil. Thanks for this insight into the Google newspeak No one is forcing Google to impose the restriction. They have free will. Google already blocked new account creation in Gizmo5 (one of their small acts of goodness) so very few users could ever make use of this scenario, in any case. So the restriction is unnecessary and overkill. Google's decision means that my android device can't place a Google Voice call from my house which has no cell phone reception. Thanks Google, for wrapping the AT&T user experience in your colorful world-changing logo.
    - mkelly 16y ago
      A decision that inconveniences you isn't necessarily evil. I agree it's unnecessary.

mieses 16y ago

"works the same way any call would" is the problem. The Google Voice app could easily work better. Why doesn't it? You do realize that it's possible to initiate a call through the Google Voice website, which then rings a soft-client (Gizmo or Sipdroid)? This scenario obviates the need for a phone line or a wireless voice plan. Google and the carriers are not morons. The decision to limit the Google Voice Android app was intentional. A computer does not need to have a voice plan to browse the Google Voice website and initiate a Google Voice call. The official Google Voice Andorid app, however, does require a voice plan to initiate the call. It's an artificial restriction. 3rd party Google Voice dialers on the Android Market, including Evan Charlton's unofficial "GV" app, are able to place GV calls from an Android device without voice service, presumably by interacting with an undocumented API or via http requests to the Google Voice web site. Blocking this feature is an example of how Google bent over for the wireless carriers at the expense of their users and contradicts Google's position on good/evil. Curious how it can be spun in any other way..

mkelly 16y ago
I disagree that it's evil. If you're a company doing business with other big, powerful companies (telcos), you can't just attack their business model and expect to keep doing business with them unless you're in a really strong position. Say Google removed this restriction, and AT&T et al just stopped supporting Android phones due to some unspecified "technical issue". Then where are we? It's undesirable, definitely. Evil, I don't think so. Evil, IMO, is if Google can remove the restrictions, and doesn't.
- mieses 16y ago
  Oh, I see. A decision that is motivated by convenience, i.e., business and profit, is not evil. Thanks for this insight into the Google newspeak No one is forcing Google to impose the restriction. They have free will. Google already blocked new account creation in Gizmo5 (one of their small acts of goodness) so very few users could ever make use of this scenario, in any case. So the restriction is unnecessary and overkill. Google's decision means that my android device can't place a Google Voice call from my house which has no cell phone reception. Thanks Google, for wrapping the AT&T user experience in your colorful world-changing logo.
  - mkelly 16y ago
    A decision that inconveniences you isn't necessarily evil. I agree it's unnecessary.