6 ms·

Google Voice for iPhone Released

209 points by johns 16y ago

dotpavan 16y ago
If searching in the appstore, "google voice" didnt bring up anything but "googlevoice" worked
- johns 16y ago
  It was on the second page of results for me.
- gte910h 16y ago
  I second searching for "googlevoice"
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
rbxbx 16y ago
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-voice/id318698524 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-voice/id318698524 <-- Direct link, gogogo, before it's gone ;)
- stevenp 16y ago
  I don't think it's available in a limited quantity. :)
BlazingFrog 16y ago
Finally... Sweet GV push notifications... :D
keltex 16y ago
It's ironic that Apple might have changed their app store rules to allow a Google product (GV) into the app store in order to counter another Google product (Android)
- sgk284 16y ago
  My understanding is that this change in policy was directly in response to pressure from the EU and FTC probes.
  - trotsky 16y ago
    It's interesting the extent to which apple is pre-emptively trying to avoid anti-trust actions by allowing apps like opera and gv and backpedaling on ad network competition. I assume that's because they see it as a real possibility that an EU remedy could be something like forcing them to natively support competing app stores. That would be a huge blow to apple revenue.
    - roc 16y ago
      are you suggesting they make a notable amount of direct money off the app store? Or are you suggesting the more indirect: more app stores->less confidence, more confusion, less sales->less device sales->less revenue
      - trotsky 16y ago
        Thanks for correcting me in a polite way - I see that analysts place app store profits at only about 1% of apple's gross profits since the store opened. Huge was obviously a poor choice of words, but still the numbers are compelling - $189M in gross profit on ~$1.3B gross revenue (assuming the $1B paid out * 1.3) - 14.5% margins even while including operating costs associated with free apps. One can also assume that the 1% contribution to profit is a growing figure since it includes the entire time the app store has been open but sales have been increasing steadily. While apple calls it "a bit over break-even", that has always been the line with itunes as well yet there are various pieces of evidence that suggest that is somewhat of a fib. I think you make an even better point than I was thinking of though. Apple clearly values the tight control they have over applications highly. Whatever their motivations there - ux, security, platform lock in, vertical integration, control over competitors - they surely believe that ceding that control would have a negative effect on their bottom line.
ja27 16y ago
Doesn't seem to be available for iPod Touch even though many of the features would work fine on it.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  Some of the big ones - like receiving calls - don't.
  - niravs 16y ago
    Not to mention placing calls. That's a huge part of the interface.
- motvbi 16y ago
  It appears number portability and iPod Touch support is not on their priority list. I have no clue why. With those two features, personally, I would be free from cell phone carriers.
  - bmelton 16y ago
    To my understanding, it doesn't implement calling functionality -- you have to have a number for the Voice service to call to. It isn't a VOIP client like Skype, so I wouldn't expect this to support the iPod touch any time soon -- unless you were planning on using it to forward to a Skype number or something like that. It's really more of a telephony abstraction than a client.
  - loire280 16y ago
    It does essentially give you number portability. 1. Set up Google Voice to forward your GV # to your cell phone. 2. Install the Google Voice app to get push notifications for SMS messages sent to your GV #. 3. Give out your GV # instead of your cell phone number. 4. Change the forwarding rules at will -- you can even use the same number for multiple phones.
    - irons 16y ago
      Number portability in this context means the ability to use an existing number with new service, not the ability to use a new number which points back at your existing number. Google's been on the record for several years as hoping to support this in the future. http://www.google.com/support/voice/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=115102 http://www.google.com/support/voice/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...
irons 16y ago
I'm struck that it appears to do very little local caching. In that sense it feels like a highly polished web app, always at the mercy of an available network. Also, it's iPhone-only. Following the direct download link from an iPod or iPad yields an error. Guess I'm sticking with Boxcar for iPad push notifications.
- samps 16y ago
  The "no caching" effect is much less pronounced with fast app switching. Are you on iOS 3.x? Also, in my experience, there are often weird consistency errors in the App Store when something new is rolling out. (I could only see it on my Mac for a while before it appeared on my phone.) Try again in an hour.
  - irons 16y ago
    I'm on 4.1. I noticed the caching behavior after seeing that the text and voicemail views start with no data loaded, even after viewing the inbox. Forcing the app to exit zeroed out all three views. Loading data is pretty fast on wifi, and the app is certainly nice to look at, but not taking any advantage of local persistence seems to push the web-centric worldview a step too far.
- nirmal 16y ago
  Guess I'm sticking with Boxcar for iPad push notifications. Same here, except using Notifo.
- jdg 16y ago
  Thanks for staying around. We have some really cool stuff coming up @Boxcar.
- BlazingFrog 16y ago
  The inbox is incredibly slow to load up ("refreshing conversations...") compared to the native SMS app or even Whatsapp (iPhone 4, 4.2, 3G 3 bars). And while it loads up, it doesn't seem to be possible to switch from the inbox to the dialer or the "Menu"... It's also crashed twice when opening after receiving a text notification. (disappointed sigh).
davemabe 16y ago
This is great - but you still have to be in the app to make a phone call (doesn't integrate with the native iPhone phone app well). Does anyone know if the Android version has tighter integration? I'd like to not have to remember to launch the app to return a call and use the native SMS app to send from my GV number. Is this possible with the Android version?
- tdfx 16y ago
  The Android version of Google Voice integrates with the native dialer and SMS apps.
  - davemabe 16y ago
    Tks - that might be enough reason to switch to Android actually.
    - lftl 16y ago
      Note that this doesn't mean GV on Android is using VOIP or anything along those lines. It simply dials one of the GV numbers for you and then connects you.
tdfx 16y ago
Overall the polish of the app seems a little lacking but the fact that push notifications are finally available makes it the service itself actually usable on an iPhone. I'm not amazed but certainly a happier person than I was yesterday.
gustaf 16y ago
Is this all native? Parts of it feels like javascript.
- csomar 16y ago
  How do you feel JavaScript???!
  - Xuzz 16y ago
    Easily: poor scrolling, slow, shadows at the end of the web views (that the iPhone SDK forces in there (!)), etc. It's fairly easy to tell on an iPhone if something is JavaScript or not, it's one of the reasons I don't use anything that's been near PhoneGap or whatever.
waxman 16y ago
This long-awaited arrival throws quite the wrench into the Android v. iOS platform wars. Google was obviously already on the iPhone (with search, its popular native app, gmail, etc.), but Google Voice is clearly different in that in competes with the core functions of the phone. What do you guys think the impact of this will be? Could Google use this as a Trojan horse to hook people on GV then try to upsell them to an Android device with better GV integration? Or will it not matter?
- irons 16y ago
  For an upsell to work, you'd first have to believe that people buy iPhones primarily to make phone calls. Then you'd have to believe that these phone-centric individuals are tolerant of the voice latency in GV calls. I don't see it.
  - secret 16y ago
    There is no voice lag in GV that I've noticed, I think it works more like call-forwarding than voip.
    - irons 16y ago
      I'd love to find some rigorous way to measure it, but (as of six months or so ago) when I sat with two phones, held down a button, and waited for a tone to come out the other end, the delay was observably longer with a GV-to-GV call than with a GV-to-cell call, which took longer than cell-to-cell. I find myself saying "no, go ahead" or talking over the other person far more often with GV than not. It's certainly usable, but I avoid GV if the call quality really matters.
      - secret 16y ago
        It definitely takes longer for calls to connect and I think it may drop calls more frequently when using it on a cell (although it has improved greatly in that regard from about a year ago). I recently started using it through gmail and have been told the calls sound much better. Not sure what it all means.
AndrewWarner 16y ago
GV Mobile+ still has a lot of features that this official google app doesn't match, like the ability to paste phone numbers into the dial pad and ability to rout numbers via Skype.
- billboebel 16y ago
  Now that they have an official app, maybe they'll iterate fast to catch up to GV Mobile's features.
  - travisp 16y ago
    On the other hand, if Apple really didn't want to allow the app, and only did so to satisfy regulators, they can do their best to slow and stall on every change that Google submits.
- chesspro 16y ago
  GV Mobile+ has a lot of extra features, but I feel like the native Google Voice app is faster and aesthetically pleasing to the eye. There were also always glitches with the GV Mobile+ app I used, e.g. text disappearing or hiding behind a whole line of whitespace.
j_b_f 16y ago
There are some rough edges (like the SMS sending screen, yuck) but what I'm impressed by is how performant the app is on my old-ass 3G. It seems to open faster than the SMS or Dialer apps do. Probably 'cause it was developed back when the 3G was cutting-edge!
igravious 16y ago
Europe is such a tiny market, why would they even consider trying something like this out here :) sniff sniff Do I have to make a sacrifice to some modern deity or something to see this on our side of the pond? Oh pretty please Goog? :)
- mambodog 16y ago
  I have to wonder if this will ever make it to Australia before we stop using the POTS.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
p0ppe 16y ago
According to John Gruber it still uses your AT&T minutes for domestic calls. That should be a turnoff for most. http://twitter.com/#!/gruber/status/4619690240376832 http://twitter.com/#!/gruber/status/4619690240376832
- kylec 16y ago
  Google Voice isn't, and has never been, a VoIP service. Phone calls made through the iPhone app or Android app have always used the phone's minutes.
  - johns 16y ago
    It wasn't until they added the ability to make calls from the browser in Gmail using your Google Voice number. So they're not a full-blown VoIP service, but they have some VoIP features now.
    - kylec 16y ago
      I think that's technically considered part of GMail/Google Talk. Google Voice just provides a facility to route the call to GMail/Google Talk.
  - davidj 16y ago
    Actually it has been. You had the ability to link up your Gizmo account which was a 100% pure VOIP service. Then, from Gizmo you could link in an Asterisk server with SIP. Google then bought Gizmo and put it on ice. You can use freeswitch/asterisk to login to your Google Talk account and take calls from your Voice account now and do the same thing.
- marknutter 16y ago
  Considering I have something like ten thousand rollover minutes because of how little I use my phone for voice calls, I can let this one slide.
nikster 16y ago
Google Voice is kind of the wrong product for the wrong time. It improves voice telephone calls exactly at a time when that's no longer very interesting. The only semi-interesting thing would be cheap international calls - but I have Skype for this already. Voice mail, I don't use. If it was improved like with GV - I'd still not use it. SMS, I have plenty of free texts, never exceed my limit - though I wonder how they get away with making them free, given that carriers make lots of money with that. One number to rule them all - that would be cool - except if it's controlled by one company which will eventually seek to monetize. Those chefs and massage services cost money... I don't, by the way, see how being available on the phone to anyone at any time, no matter what number they call and no matter where I am - as a feature. More like a bug. I am already easily reachable on my phone, via SMS, via emails. I don't need to be any more available. Anything that I'm missing? Why would I want GV?
- khafra 16y ago
  For me, Google Voice's features allow me more granular control over my availability, and reduce the total time my telephone takes by letting me skim textual versions of voicemails, direct calls hither and thither, etc.

209 points by johns 16y ago

dotpavan 16y ago

If searching in the appstore, "google voice" didnt bring up anything but "googlevoice" worked

johns 16y ago
It was on the second page of results for me.
gte910h 16y ago
I second searching for "googlevoice"

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

rbxbx 16y ago

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-voice/id318698524 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-voice/id318698524 <-- Direct link, gogogo, before it's gone ;)

stevenp 16y ago
I don't think it's available in a limited quantity. :)

BlazingFrog 16y ago

Finally... Sweet GV push notifications... :D

keltex 16y ago

It's ironic that Apple might have changed their app store rules to allow a Google product (GV) into the app store in order to counter another Google product (Android)

sgk284 16y ago
My understanding is that this change in policy was directly in response to pressure from the EU and FTC probes.
- trotsky 16y ago
  It's interesting the extent to which apple is pre-emptively trying to avoid anti-trust actions by allowing apps like opera and gv and backpedaling on ad network competition. I assume that's because they see it as a real possibility that an EU remedy could be something like forcing them to natively support competing app stores. That would be a huge blow to apple revenue.
  - roc 16y ago
    are you suggesting they make a notable amount of direct money off the app store? Or are you suggesting the more indirect: more app stores->less confidence, more confusion, less sales->less device sales->less revenue
    - trotsky 16y ago
      Thanks for correcting me in a polite way - I see that analysts place app store profits at only about 1% of apple's gross profits since the store opened. Huge was obviously a poor choice of words, but still the numbers are compelling - $189M in gross profit on ~$1.3B gross revenue (assuming the $1B paid out * 1.3) - 14.5% margins even while including operating costs associated with free apps. One can also assume that the 1% contribution to profit is a growing figure since it includes the entire time the app store has been open but sales have been increasing steadily. While apple calls it "a bit over break-even", that has always been the line with itunes as well yet there are various pieces of evidence that suggest that is somewhat of a fib. I think you make an even better point than I was thinking of though. Apple clearly values the tight control they have over applications highly. Whatever their motivations there - ux, security, platform lock in, vertical integration, control over competitors - they surely believe that ceding that control would have a negative effect on their bottom line.

ja27 16y ago

Doesn't seem to be available for iPod Touch even though many of the features would work fine on it.

ceejayoz 16y ago
Some of the big ones - like receiving calls - don't.
- niravs 16y ago
  Not to mention placing calls. That's a huge part of the interface.
motvbi 16y ago
It appears number portability and iPod Touch support is not on their priority list. I have no clue why. With those two features, personally, I would be free from cell phone carriers.
- bmelton 16y ago
  To my understanding, it doesn't implement calling functionality -- you have to have a number for the Voice service to call to. It isn't a VOIP client like Skype, so I wouldn't expect this to support the iPod touch any time soon -- unless you were planning on using it to forward to a Skype number or something like that. It's really more of a telephony abstraction than a client.
- loire280 16y ago
  It does essentially give you number portability. 1. Set up Google Voice to forward your GV # to your cell phone. 2. Install the Google Voice app to get push notifications for SMS messages sent to your GV #. 3. Give out your GV # instead of your cell phone number. 4. Change the forwarding rules at will -- you can even use the same number for multiple phones.
  - irons 16y ago
    Number portability in this context means the ability to use an existing number with new service, not the ability to use a new number which points back at your existing number. Google's been on the record for several years as hoping to support this in the future. http://www.google.com/support/voice/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=115102 http://www.google.com/support/voice/bin/answer.py?hl=en&...

irons 16y ago

I'm struck that it appears to do very little local caching. In that sense it feels like a highly polished web app, always at the mercy of an available network. Also, it's iPhone-only. Following the direct download link from an iPod or iPad yields an error. Guess I'm sticking with Boxcar for iPad push notifications.

samps 16y ago
The "no caching" effect is much less pronounced with fast app switching. Are you on iOS 3.x? Also, in my experience, there are often weird consistency errors in the App Store when something new is rolling out. (I could only see it on my Mac for a while before it appeared on my phone.) Try again in an hour.
- irons 16y ago
  I'm on 4.1. I noticed the caching behavior after seeing that the text and voicemail views start with no data loaded, even after viewing the inbox. Forcing the app to exit zeroed out all three views. Loading data is pretty fast on wifi, and the app is certainly nice to look at, but not taking any advantage of local persistence seems to push the web-centric worldview a step too far.
nirmal 16y ago
Guess I'm sticking with Boxcar for iPad push notifications. Same here, except using Notifo.
jdg 16y ago
Thanks for staying around. We have some really cool stuff coming up @Boxcar.
BlazingFrog 16y ago
The inbox is incredibly slow to load up ("refreshing conversations...") compared to the native SMS app or even Whatsapp (iPhone 4, 4.2, 3G 3 bars). And while it loads up, it doesn't seem to be possible to switch from the inbox to the dialer or the "Menu"... It's also crashed twice when opening after receiving a text notification. (disappointed sigh).

davemabe 16y ago

This is great - but you still have to be in the app to make a phone call (doesn't integrate with the native iPhone phone app well). Does anyone know if the Android version has tighter integration? I'd like to not have to remember to launch the app to return a call and use the native SMS app to send from my GV number. Is this possible with the Android version?

tdfx 16y ago
The Android version of Google Voice integrates with the native dialer and SMS apps.
- davemabe 16y ago
  Tks - that might be enough reason to switch to Android actually.
  - lftl 16y ago
    Note that this doesn't mean GV on Android is using VOIP or anything along those lines. It simply dials one of the GV numbers for you and then connects you.

tdfx 16y ago

Overall the polish of the app seems a little lacking but the fact that push notifications are finally available makes it the service itself actually usable on an iPhone. I'm not amazed but certainly a happier person than I was yesterday.

gustaf 16y ago

Is this all native? Parts of it feels like javascript.

csomar 16y ago
How do you feel JavaScript???!
- Xuzz 16y ago
  Easily: poor scrolling, slow, shadows at the end of the web views (that the iPhone SDK forces in there (!)), etc. It's fairly easy to tell on an iPhone if something is JavaScript or not, it's one of the reasons I don't use anything that's been near PhoneGap or whatever.

waxman 16y ago

This long-awaited arrival throws quite the wrench into the Android v. iOS platform wars. Google was obviously already on the iPhone (with search, its popular native app, gmail, etc.), but Google Voice is clearly different in that in competes with the core functions of the phone. What do you guys think the impact of this will be? Could Google use this as a Trojan horse to hook people on GV then try to upsell them to an Android device with better GV integration? Or will it not matter?

irons 16y ago
For an upsell to work, you'd first have to believe that people buy iPhones primarily to make phone calls. Then you'd have to believe that these phone-centric individuals are tolerant of the voice latency in GV calls. I don't see it.
- secret 16y ago
  There is no voice lag in GV that I've noticed, I think it works more like call-forwarding than voip.
  - irons 16y ago
    I'd love to find some rigorous way to measure it, but (as of six months or so ago) when I sat with two phones, held down a button, and waited for a tone to come out the other end, the delay was observably longer with a GV-to-GV call than with a GV-to-cell call, which took longer than cell-to-cell. I find myself saying "no, go ahead" or talking over the other person far more often with GV than not. It's certainly usable, but I avoid GV if the call quality really matters.
    - secret 16y ago
      It definitely takes longer for calls to connect and I think it may drop calls more frequently when using it on a cell (although it has improved greatly in that regard from about a year ago). I recently started using it through gmail and have been told the calls sound much better. Not sure what it all means.

AndrewWarner 16y ago

GV Mobile+ still has a lot of features that this official google app doesn't match, like the ability to paste phone numbers into the dial pad and ability to rout numbers via Skype.

billboebel 16y ago
Now that they have an official app, maybe they'll iterate fast to catch up to GV Mobile's features.
- travisp 16y ago
  On the other hand, if Apple really didn't want to allow the app, and only did so to satisfy regulators, they can do their best to slow and stall on every change that Google submits.
chesspro 16y ago
GV Mobile+ has a lot of extra features, but I feel like the native Google Voice app is faster and aesthetically pleasing to the eye. There were also always glitches with the GV Mobile+ app I used, e.g. text disappearing or hiding behind a whole line of whitespace.

j_b_f 16y ago

There are some rough edges (like the SMS sending screen, yuck) but what I'm impressed by is how performant the app is on my old-ass 3G. It seems to open faster than the SMS or Dialer apps do. Probably 'cause it was developed back when the 3G was cutting-edge!

igravious 16y ago

Europe is such a tiny market, why would they even consider trying something like this out here :) sniff sniff Do I have to make a sacrifice to some modern deity or something to see this on our side of the pond? Oh pretty please Goog? :)

mambodog 16y ago
I have to wonder if this will ever make it to Australia before we stop using the POTS.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

p0ppe 16y ago

According to John Gruber it still uses your AT&T minutes for domestic calls. That should be a turnoff for most. http://twitter.com/#!/gruber/status/4619690240376832 http://twitter.com/#!/gruber/status/4619690240376832

kylec 16y ago
Google Voice isn't, and has never been, a VoIP service. Phone calls made through the iPhone app or Android app have always used the phone's minutes.
- johns 16y ago
  It wasn't until they added the ability to make calls from the browser in Gmail using your Google Voice number. So they're not a full-blown VoIP service, but they have some VoIP features now.
  - kylec 16y ago
    I think that's technically considered part of GMail/Google Talk. Google Voice just provides a facility to route the call to GMail/Google Talk.
- davidj 16y ago
  Actually it has been. You had the ability to link up your Gizmo account which was a 100% pure VOIP service. Then, from Gizmo you could link in an Asterisk server with SIP. Google then bought Gizmo and put it on ice. You can use freeswitch/asterisk to login to your Google Talk account and take calls from your Voice account now and do the same thing.
marknutter 16y ago
Considering I have something like ten thousand rollover minutes because of how little I use my phone for voice calls, I can let this one slide.

nikster 16y ago

Google Voice is kind of the wrong product for the wrong time. It improves voice telephone calls exactly at a time when that's no longer very interesting. The only semi-interesting thing would be cheap international calls - but I have Skype for this already. Voice mail, I don't use. If it was improved like with GV - I'd still not use it. SMS, I have plenty of free texts, never exceed my limit - though I wonder how they get away with making them free, given that carriers make lots of money with that. One number to rule them all - that would be cool - except if it's controlled by one company which will eventually seek to monetize. Those chefs and massage services cost money... I don't, by the way, see how being available on the phone to anyone at any time, no matter what number they call and no matter where I am - as a feature. More like a bug. I am already easily reachable on my phone, via SMS, via emails. I don't need to be any more available. Anything that I'm missing? Why would I want GV?

khafra 16y ago
For me, Google Voice's features allow me more granular control over my availability, and reduce the total time my telephone takes by letting me skim textual versions of voicemails, direct calls hither and thither, etc.