×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Voice Apps Arrive For Android and Blackberry

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the giving-voice-to-your-phone dept.

Android 106

Mark Mathson writes "Two Google Voice apps have been released for Blackberry and Android phones. The Android app is the most complete, and it takes over the native dialer, address book and call log. Users won't be bothered with accidentally dialing numbers through the device phone number. The Blackberry app is less integrated, accessing only the native address book, and uses its own dialer. Users can't simply go into the call log and return missed calls. They need to go back to the address book and select Google Voice to make the call. Still, it solves a big problem. The apps also allow users to access the core features of Google Voice. You can listen to or read voicemails and text messages (all voicemails are automatically transcribed), access call history, send SMS messages and place international calls at low rates."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

106 comments

This is great. (2, Funny)

isolovelinux (1598555) | more than 4 years ago | (#28704699)

Just imagine what things like this will mean for Chrome OS too! I have Android running on a quad-core Core 2 Duo system and performance is amazing--GO LINUX!!!

Re:This is great. (3, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#28704753)

How exactly is the performance "amazing"?

The heart of Android's application layer, Dalvik, runs purely in interpreted mode. This is what most Python, Ruby implementations do and what Java did a decade ago. The performance is slow and irritating.

I have a G1 and love the phone. But I wouldn't call it a speed demon. Maybe the Core 2 helps out, but I'd still rather have native code or a JIT, so I can get performance close to what the hardware is capable of.

Re:This is great. (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705023)

Well, that's the point of the parent post. Android is designed for G1-like system resources and the parent is running it on the latest quad-core CPU. Of course it is going to have out-of-this-world performance. It is just very lightweight and lacks most of the features that a standard distribution provide by default.

Re:This is great. (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705193)

I have a feeling we're all missing a very bad joke by the parent.

Re:This is great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28705261)

I'm not sure that the OP and the GPP* aren't the same person.
Seems like a classic troll to me...

* The first one who replied to the original poster that is...

Re:This is great. (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705509)

Oh man, you got me.

What a "classic troll?"

Or is this some kind of recursive troll? Like GNU/Troll? Oh my god, are you me? Am I Tyler Durden? NO CARRIER

Re:This is great. (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705581)

Not really.

Because the applications are all interpreted, it's going to run poorly on the Core 2 as well.

Just slightly less so.

Re:This is great. (2, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705347)

There is no access to device hardware? For example, my Nokia E65 with a 133 mhz processor doesn`t really "play" h264 video, the app calls some framework whatever and that framework tells some chip to decode h264. It is same deal both on Symbian and J2ME apps.

If it can`t do it, why did Google go with their "android" thing instead of J2ME which can be extended via JSR?

Re:This is great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28705429)

Google DOES access hardware in Android. You can even write low-level native code and use that in Android apps.

The GP's post relates to most Applications, which CAN call native code, but writing and compiling it for each device is prohibitive as an application developer. No problem for the platform, but most apps won't have the app-level work done natively.

Re:This is great. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706313)

Oh it is more like Symbian Signed scheme where "root access" and things like "startup at device boot" will need a certificate from independent signers but regular stuff will run fine. It is solved via open signed which application is freely (and manually, by interaction on purpose) signed but tied to single IMEI hardware.

Re:This is great. (2, Informative)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 4 years ago | (#28707385)

It might not hurt to clarify that the API for native code was only opened up about a week ago. Until then, all applications that used the supported SDK were completely emulated. The SDK did provide APIs for playing video/etc, of course, and the SDK itself would have been natively implemented and would make use if embedded hardware where possible.

Note also that per the request of the phone manufacturers, Google has tried to make it hard to design apps that might encode/compress audio in realtime for network transmission (VOIP/etc). Obviously the phone has that hardware integrated into it for GSM, but the phone company would obviously prefer that all actual phone calls be made via GSM so that they can bill them.

Re:This is great. (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706333)

Android now allows native code execution.

Re:This is great. (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 4 years ago | (#28707983)

Android has always allowed native code execution. The only difference now is Google has officially published a supported SDK (NDK) to facilitate the process.

Re:This is great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28708167)

The performance is slow and irritating.

If your G1 isn't performing as fast as you'd like, you should flash one of the many custom speed-optimized ROMs which can be found on the xda-developers forum. CyanogenMod is open-source and is my personal favorite.

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=518851

You will need a rooted G1. You should be running a rooted G1 if you're posting on ./ anyway.

Re:This is great. (1)

kamatsu (969795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28714151)

Completely wrong. It is not interpreted, it is compiled to dalvik bytecode, like the JVM. The only difference is it doesn't support runtime bytecode generation.

Re:This is great. (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#28721119)

You might want to read up on what you're talking about before posting.

kthxbye

Re:This is great. (1)

kamatsu (969795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28723687)

Fine, I'll use wikipedia to back up my claims.

"Java bytecode is also converted into an alternate instruction set used by the Dalvik VM. An uncompressed .dex file is typically a few percent smaller in size than a compressed .jar (Java Archive) derived from the same .class files."

"It uses its own bytecode, not Java bytecode."

This is not direct interpretation of source, this is compilation.

Re:This is great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28715319)

Core 2? What the hell are you talking about?

Re:This is great. (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28704763)

What apps are you using or running? Any pics/videos...Heck we have Youtube, right? Any issues you'd like Google to address? Just curious!

Re:This is great. (2, Informative)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705187)

you do realise that Chrome/Android are just pushing platforms for Google's Web services (and therefore AdWords) and the fact that they use the Linux kernel is just a minor technical detail since most of these devices will be too locked down to even get a bash session running without a day's worth of jailbreaking and (in the case of Android) unlocking.

I don't get the hysteria over Google Voice (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28704729)

But I suppose that's because I'm usually on the phone less than an hour a month.

Re:I don't get the hysteria over Google Voice (2, Informative)

Bigby (659157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28704927)

It will be quite useful for us consultants that have our personal cell phone, Consulting company phone, and usually even a client phone (for long term projects). It is like having 3 email addresses and checking them all at once through an email client.

In addition to that, you can treat your voice mail like email and listen the voice mail only if necessary. This is much quicker for those of us with Blackberries and the like.

Re:I don't get the hysteria over Google Voice (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705009)

I barely use it, but the voicemail transcription and text-messaging "conversation" history is cool.

Re:I don't get the hysteria over Google Voice (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706811)

Voicemail transcription is awesome. I've got it setup to replace my cell phone's voicemail completely. I liked having email on my cell phone, but getting voicemail in your computer's email is just damn cool.

Re:I don't get the hysteria over Google Voice (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705181)

But I suppose that's because I'm usually on the phone less than an hour a month.

I don't see why time on the phone is meaningful in evaluating Google Voice (and frankly, I'm shocked to hear that there's "hysteria", given that everyone I talk to has never heard of it.

Google Voice provides a number of useful features: portable phone numbers that can be directed at multiple devices simultaneously; Web-accessible voice mail; voice main transcription and so on. They're useful features. That's really all there is to it.

Re:I don't get the hysteria over Google Voice (4, Insightful)

Mantorp (142371) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705235)

and dirt cheap international calls from my cellphone, much better call quality than skype for windows mobile

Re:I don't get the hysteria over Google Voice (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706865)

I think sprint charges $4 a month just for the privileged to make overpriced international calls. And another fee to make international SMS. So yeah it's a pretty big deal for those who are studying abroad or have lots of international friends/business contacts.

Hypocrites (2)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 4 years ago | (#28704739)

Just how ubiquitous do Google have to be before geeks realise they're far, far worse than Microsoft and Big Brother combined?

Re:Hypocrites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28704825)

when they DO EVIL(TM) like M$ then we shall come to that realization, dear sir. meanwhile, M$ is the GREAT EVIL(TM).

Re:Hypocrites (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705435)

They say "do no evil" or something, we gotta trust them :)

These people are actually running Google coded kernel, on a device advertised as "Google powered". It must be a bit late to convince them about the privacy risks.

I am actually surprised that Google doesn`t go more evil considering how ignorant people have become about their privacy and rights. Well, Google powered netbook will be probably free to grab and you will probably get shocked at people asking for "invitation codes".

Re:Hypocrites (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#28708241)

Tell me what they have done that's worse them MS or a fictional Government?

MS has earned hatred through crappy tools, lies, and being a bully. They're size isn't the point. Yes I know, you can't be a bully without being that size, but that is a seperate issue.

And Big Brother is a fictional government that can't, in all practicality, actually happen.

Interesting to see what the UK carriers will do... (1)

quarkoid (26884) | more than 4 years ago | (#28704791)

I have a G1 through T-Mobile in the UK. My terms and conditions say that I'm not allowed to use VoIP services (well, the wording's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it).

Be interesting to see what happens as and when Google Voice gets rolled out to the UK. In the meantime, can somebody invite me to join the US trial and provide the necessary details of harbour?

Nick.

Re:Interesting to see what the UK carriers will do (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28704975)

It probably isn't using VoIP. Google Voice has a feature where it will call your phone, then connect you to the person you want to call. I imagine the app just calls the web service, which dials your phone, the app auto-answers, and then you're connected as a regular voice call.

Trying to run VoIP on T-Mobile's data network would fail pretty fast.

Re:Interesting to see what the UK carriers will do (1)

bcong (1125705) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705461)

I don't think your summary does Google Voice justice. Within their database they have phone numbers with the area code 406 dynamically assigned to a Google voice subscriber and each of that subscriber's contacts. This means that if you call from your phone which is registered under Google voice the 406-xxx-xxxx that corresponds with a certain person within your contact list, you will be in turn calling that person transparently, and they will see on their caller id your GV number not the actual number of the phone your dialing from. This gets around the whole "Hey everybody! I have a new phone number, don't use the old one" problem as well as the manual proxy that is calling your own GV number from your phone then putting in the number of the person you want to call. Since the 406 number is personal to you and is dependent on you and who you are calling, Google only needs to buy enough 406 numbers from a Telco provider to fulfill the person has the largest contact list. It is hard to describe but, in effect, they have reduced the need to know phone numbers because they do it all in the background transparently, as well as the manual proxy annoyance. The downside is that it is not fully implemented. To see one of your contact's own 406 number, you have to SMS them from your GV number and they need to reply back. There is a rumor that Google may be automating this soon. If you don't think about the security concerns, Google's got a winner here

Re:Interesting to see what the UK carriers will do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28707615)

This is exactly right. (Just needs some paragraphs.)

Re:Interesting to see what the UK carriers will do (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#28708051)

Google voice doesn't take the place of your phone service, it uses it. What you do is call the number Google gives you, then it places the call. So as far as your phone company is concerned, you spend the entire call connected to Google.

Re:Interesting to see what the UK carriers will do (1)

ianmacfarlane (1509193) | more than 4 years ago | (#28714115)

Google voice doesn't take the place of your phone service, it uses it. What you do is call the number Google gives you, then it places the call. So as far as your phone company is concerned, you spend the entire call connected to Google.

My phone tariff (I've got an HTC Magic) provides unlimited landline calls - so does that mean if I can call a "landline" Google Voice number, essentially (tariff aside) all calls will be free?

Re:Interesting to see what the UK carriers will do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28715979)

While you are using the mobile phone service, you are using the Internet access side of it. So you avoid using the (probably) more expensive cellular voice system.

This could really eat at the heart of the profits of the traditional carriers.

Another example would be using Google voice via a web browser to send/receive SMS. A few seconds usage of my Verizon account's "unlimited web and email" could transfer thousands of text messages. Net value of 1000 SMS is $150.

Today you will probably still want a cell phone service. But if you spend 90% of your time within range of a wifi access point, how about a mobile device that looks like a cell phone, but uses wifi and costs about zero $ per month. A fancier version could switch to a pay as you go plan when out of reach of wifi.

Unlimited Calling (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28704827)

Just add your Google Voice # to your Fav5 plan or whatever and use these apps w/Google Voice to route all your outbound calls, the cellular company only thinks your calling the same number and google is routing it for you. If you willing to ditch caller-id you can configure google voice so all inbound calls have your Google # as caller ID.

Re:Unlimited Calling (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28704951)

First part is great.

As for the second part, why would I want to ditch caller ID?

Re:Unlimited Calling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28705229)

for unlimited inbound calls?

Re:Unlimited Calling (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705245)

So you know when the call is coming in via Google Voice. Otherwise, you can't tell if the call is straight to your cell # or through your Google Voice #.

Re:Unlimited Calling (1)

laxpeter (996124) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705327)

So that all inbound calls count as being in your Fav5 plan too. Is that really how TMobile tracks it, though? Just on caller ID? If so, I could certainly imagine the caller id info being passed on the data network from Google to your phone so that it could display the 'real' caller ID, while still qualifying for the free call from TMobile.

Re:Unlimited Calling (1)

sharpone (706018) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705743)

I have this running. I have found that a number of GV calls have been marked as 'unavailable' on my call history, even though the CID has never failed to come to the phone. I am not sure if this is because T-Mobile recognizes the call pattern as always going to/from 1 number or not. It is definitely against their Terms and Conditions: "*Your five numbers must be US domestic numbers and must not include 411, voicemail, toll-free, 900, calling card, and customers' own numbers; and single numbers allowing access to 500 or more persons." I'm willing to take the risk, but I don't use GV exclusively, that way I mix it up with regular usage.

Out bound calls are free too, since the call is registered with GV and rings you back. You can also dial your GV number, press 2, and make an actual "outbound" free call. This isn't very convenient though, since its used like a calling card. Maybe this new Google Voice app will change that.

Re:Unlimited Calling (1)

Mantorp (142371) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706203)

for the few people I dial internationally fairly frequently I added them as GV - Bob for example then put the number as my GV number followed by a p for pause then my pin and another p then 2, then another p then the number and pound sign.
like this:
555-555-5555p1111p2p011445555555555#
It dials the whole thing automatically

Re:Unlimited Calling (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705633)

Aren't most of the Fav5 plans within about $20 of the unlimited plan from the phone company?

Looking, Alltel starts friends and family at $40 (for a local plan) and it look like a mostly unlimited national plan is $90.

Boost mobile has unlimited for $50:

http://plans.boostmobile.com/monthlyunlimited.aspx [boostmobile.com]

But I don't think they have quite the same coverage as the networks (I know they use Sprint's network, but I'm not sure if they have any roaming agreements with Verizon; if they do not, they would not have equivalent coverage to Sprint).

Re:Unlimited Calling (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#28708037)

Just add your Google Voice # to your Fav5 plan or whatever and use these apps w/Google Voice to route all your outbound calls, the cellular company only thinks your calling the same number and google is routing it for you. If you willing to ditch caller-id you can configure google voice so all inbound calls have your Google # as caller ID.

This is clever, but I doubt it will work. First of all, Google will call you back when you make your calls, and you don't know what number Google will call from. (wait for it)

the cellular company only thinks your calling the same number

Secondly, even if Google is spoofing a caller ID# that is on your favorites list, its not really calling from that number... Do you really think Google's CallerID spoofing is going to fool your phone company? Really? If true, then all anyone would ever need to do to get free phone calls is be able to spoof caller ID. I doubt it can work. Caller ID spoofs the commercial caller ID, but the back end prolly still knows what the true number is. I bet you can't wait to see next month's bill.

Re:Unlimited Calling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28712511)

This is clever, but I doubt it will work. First of all, Google will call you back when you make your calls, and you don't know what number Google will call from. (wait for it)

At what point does this actually happen?

When you call your GV number from your phone and then dial out from there, it does not call you back. = Free call
When you call via the GV website, it calls you from your GV number. = Free call

 

Secondly, even if Google is spoofing a caller ID# that is on your favorites list, its not really calling from that number... Do you really think Google's CallerID spoofing is going to fool your phone company? Really? If true, then all anyone would ever need to do to get free phone calls is be able to spoof caller ID. I doubt it can work. Caller ID spoofs the commercial caller ID, but the back end prolly still knows what the true number is. I bet you can't wait to see next month's bill.

Google isn't spoofing anything. Someone calls your GV number, it terminates there as far as the caller's telco is concerned. GV then calls you, which appears to their provider as an origination from the GV side. Where does this spoofing take place?

As someone that uses this trick, I can assure you that it works as described.

Re:Unlimited Calling (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#28722955)

At what point does this actually happen?

the following sentences.

When you call your GV number from your phone and then dial out from there, it does not call you back. = Free call

ah... so... even before you had GV you had a free phone line or a free unlimited cell. What do you need GV for?

Anyone else have issues with this and GAFYD? (1)

$1uck (710826) | more than 4 years ago | (#28704917)

This is the second time I've come across issues with GAFYD and google services. I'm using GAFYD on my g1 and I have a google Voice account with the same account, yet when I try to run the android voice app it says I have no GV account associated with a different google account I have (one that isn't setup on the phone, not sure how it knew it was associated to me at all). Anyone get it working successfully with a nonstandard google account?

Most of this functionality already existed on G1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28705033)

The Android Market has had an app available for some time now called GV, written by Evan Charlton. Not only does it have the "official" Google Voice app functionality, but allows for greater customization of what calls you route through Google Voice vs your regular number.

Re:Most of this functionality already existed on G (3, Interesting)

Evan Charlton (1498823) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705269)

Since you mentioned it, I'm not sure what this development means for the future of my GV application [evancharlton.com]. You can read more about my thoughts on the matter in my blog post [evancharlton.com]

For those slashdotters who are GV users--what are your thoughts on the matter? Is the official app sufficiently crippled that I should continue? Should I aim for a peaceful coexistence?

Re:Most of this functionality already existed on G (1)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 4 years ago | (#28707097)

Try joining Google so you can work on their new app. Use your existing app as reference.

Re:Most of this functionality already existed on G (1)

pwfffff (1517213) | more than 4 years ago | (#28707353)

"Since you mentioned it, ANONYMOUS USER THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE ME, I'm not sure what this development means for the future of my GV application [evancharlton.com]."

Fix'd! :D

Re:Most of this functionality already existed on G (2, Informative)

Evan Charlton (1498823) | more than 4 years ago | (#28707389)

Since you felt the need to ask, no, it wasn't. You can choose believe that or not--it makes no difference to me.

Re:Most of this functionality already existed on G (1)

nohup (26783) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710949)

At the moment, the official Google App doesnt even work for me because I use a different Google account for the Google voice than the one associated with my Android and your app lets me configure that but Google's doesn't. So I can't compare the differences because Google's app doesn't even work on my phone. However, I've also read that yours has other features that Google's doesn't have, for example, the ability to choose whether or not to make the call through Google voice or not. I really like that feature.

I say you should keep up the good work on your app for the moment, and where Google's works better see if you can polish yours to the point that those features work just as well. Your app is slow at placing outbound calls. Anyway to fix that? I hear it going through menu prompts or something. Also, it would be really cool to be able to do SMS intercepting as well (like you do with voice), and have that work seamlessly (while still being able to choose between normal and GV).

Another feature suggestion: cache some of the stuff like the Mail tab and the Call Log, so I don't have to wait for it to "log in" just to see what was already there previously.

No luck on G1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28705105)

"Sorry, Google Voice is not supported on your device."

Happens when I hit that site with my G1. OTOH, GV for Android still works well: http://docs.evancharlton.com/docs/GV [evancharlton.com]

Hope this crashes Skype for good (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705287)

I bet Symbian and even high end J2ME client will follow soon and if people choose an officially shipped, supported application instead of 3rd party clones, Skype will be really hit big time.

It has been YEARS that Symbian S60 client of Skype, the one you can click and download to any S60 device was promised but never shipped. It comes with some phone in UK I heard. That is it. They also spread some real FUD about J2ME in the process when people were naive enough to ask them.

Skype and eBay suits running it really needs a lesson. How hard to admit that it was a really massive fault, they can`t run a VOIP company which has to support thousands of different configurations and put it to market or something? Not just that, they released iPhone version in matter of months and Windows Mobile version is there for ages. Something really goes on in those offices, something really interesting.

Re:Hope this crashes Skype for good (1)

guisar (69737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705475)

Skype has officially sucked ass for about a year now- the Linux client only half works on Pulse and is way behind the MS window version in features. The S60 "lite" version is useless as it still uses airtime. Come on- Fring enables (in a sort of functional way) the skype functionality so why can't Skype get it's act together.

I'm a Skypeout and Skype number paying customer but I'm searching for something more responsive to my needs and I'll gladly say to hell with them when I find it.

Google voice I'm sure everyone isn't really a skype replacement- it's not a phone just a way (so far as I can see) to integrate your different numbers. That said I have it and I really like it.

Re:Hope this crashes Skype for good (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706131)

Oh Fring has become such a standard in Symbian so they shouldn`t even bother with coding it after this stage and help/support Fring instead.

I mean they can code World`s best VOIP client ever and Symbian community may ignore them since people are really sick of the never ending story.

Re:Hope this crashes Skype for good (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 4 years ago | (#28708883)

I'm a Skypeout and Skype number paying customer but I'm searching for something more responsive to my needs and I'll gladly say to hell with them when I find it.

Gizmo5 and any standard VoIP client? I use Twinkle on Linux.

It'd be nice... (4, Insightful)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705289)

...if they released a few more invites to Google Voice to go along with this so people could test -- I mean, I'm sitting here with a G1 and I can't even use it. :P

Re:It'd be nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28705555)

I don't know how gradually they're rolling it out, but I just got my invite yesterday.

Re:It'd be nice... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706009)

Just fill out the form on the main page. I got my invitation in less than 24 hours last week.

Here's the link: https://services.google.com/fb/forms/googlevoiceinvite/ [google.com]

Re:It'd be nice... (1)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28707055)

I think the invites may be random. I filled out my app to beta test it a few months ago, and only got the invite last week.

Re:It'd be nice... (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 4 years ago | (#28708235)

I think the invites may be random. I filled out my app to beta test it a few months ago, and only got the invite last week.

They only started sending out new invites about two weeks ago after a long hiatus. They've worked through the backlog now and it's pretty quick to get an account.

Re:It'd be nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28712475)

Heh, I also requested an invitation months ago and never got the invite. I put in another request a couple days ago and got the invite today. Bizarre system they have.

Re:It'd be nice... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#28708195)

huh, I've been on that list since pretty close to day 1. Still no invite.
Must be my high standards~

Re:It'd be nice... (1)

EMeta (860558) | more than 4 years ago | (#28708987)

As another data point, I'm in the same situation & got my invite a couple of hours ago.

US-only.. (1)

(Score:1) (181164) | more than 4 years ago | (#28714123)

I got my invite last week, but since GV is not "available" outside the US, I'm not even allowed to register..
It's (again) a US-only thing..

International? (1)

Svippy (876087) | more than 4 years ago | (#28705365)

Sure, they say it can make "cheap international calls", but can it understand if I ask it to call someone in my native language (which, for the record, is not English)?

Can it transcript voicemails that are in another language than English? Because very few of my voicemails are in English. Very few of my contacts on my phone has an English clinging name.

When Apple released their Voice Control for the iPhone 3G S, they never came around this issue, yet speaking of it in the same keynote as they talked about how many countries they were going to sell it in and not only that, how great their internationalisation was going.

I guess multiple language support is just a fevered dream of mine.

Re:International? (1)

DaleHarris (1328785) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706135)

I'm currently using Google Voice, and it doesn't listen to me when I tell it to call people. Unfortunately, it doesn't have Voice Recognition for anything. Just voice transcription services for the voicemails. As for transcribing the email from Spanish to English or something like that, as for right now, Google Voice is only US numbers as far as I'm tracking, so I wouldn't expect the ability to transcribe. If GOOG-411 goes international, then you will probably see a shift towards more languages, since the Google Voice Transcription service is directly related to the data culled from GOOG-411, which is also just US at the moment, as far as I'm aware.

Re:International? (1)

NiteShaed (315799) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706531)

Sure, they say it can make "cheap international calls", but can it understand if I ask it to call someone in my native language (which, for the record, is not English)?

I'm not sure what you're asking here.....you dial the number, and the call is placed like any other phone. What difference does it make what language the actual conversation is in?

Can it transcript voicemails that are in another language than English? Because very few of my voicemails are in English. Very few of my contacts on my phone has an English clinging name.

AFAIK, transcription is English only (at least for now). Considering that the service is only available at this point in the U.S. though, that's not particularly surprising....

I guess multiple language support is just a fevered dream of mine.

Give 'em a chance.....so far they only have a limited run going, and it's only in the U.S.. If they get a good response and decide to go international with it, I would expect that multiple languages would go along with that.....

Palm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28705841)

Once again us PalmOS users get left in the dust.

30 Second Review (1)

222 (551054) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706661)

Outbound SMS worked and appeared to come from my Google Voice number. My friend replied, and the SMS I recieved did not have his cell number as a sender. It did have my contact entry prefixing his message, though.

Example SMS Body: -John Smith: Hey, I got your text.

Outbound calls using the Blackberry app looked like they were trying to connect but never went through. Maybe the load from the app release is a bit more than they planned on.

Txt to voice (1)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 4 years ago | (#28706899)

It would be great if someone wrote a voice app that allowed you to dicate text messages to your friends, since typing on those little keypads can be a pain.

And it would be even cooler if your friends' phones had a voice app that could then dictate the text message back through the phone's speaker.

That would be a great set of apps for a phone, I hope someone comes up with it :p
(Yuk Yuk)

Re:Txt to voice (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709565)

No, no, no, you stupid American. Txt >>> voice.

I had this argument with my wife before. She has a Blackberry. I have a ... phone. Just a phone. I've finally gotten her to understand that just calling me is easier and faster than trying to have a conversation over text, especially since it will take more time than the entire conversation for me to send a single text using that damned keypad.

Re:Txt to voice (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 4 years ago | (#28710677)

For conversations, yes. However, for a quick question, text messages are better, because I can get straight to the point, and get a direct answer.

Re:Txt to voice (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 4 years ago | (#28711053)

I understand that this is, in theory, an advantage. But unless the answer required is simply yes or no, with no elaboration, it takes longer to text than to talk. (And it's cheaper to talk than to text!)

Again, this is something I do with my wife - we don't have to spend time exchanging pleasantries, we can just say "hey, you want to go to the movies with X and Y this weekend?" If the answer is yes, we can go right ahead and start discussing what to see - no additional time to compose replies, wait for the text to get sent, etc. I think people tend to overestimate just how efficient texting is, because it's really convenient if you have a phone with a keyboard, and in any case you have the option to ignore it if you're busy and return it later. But once you get into a text conversation - which almost all of these end up as - it really is quicker to call. (Of course, you can't do that in a meeting.)

Re:Txt to voice (1)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 4 years ago | (#28711737)

Maybe you guys missed my silly point.
What I described is the same thing as what phones were originally designed to do, send and receive voice.
Having a voice to txt to voice feature is foolish. My attempt at humor. ;)

I've been using the app since it was grand central (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 4 years ago | (#28707135)

I was using the app on my G1 when it was still called grand central.

It's an excellent app. Now you can place calls direct with GV.

The SMS portion is useless since I use the googletalk app.

The voicemail is great. I just wish they included GV configuration in the app and the ringshare service.

Re:I've been using the app since it was grand cent (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#28708271)

I was using the app on my G1 when it was still called grand central.

yeah, but you still ahve a 6 digit ID, Loser~

Cheap, Easy Phone Service At Last? (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 4 years ago | (#28707933)

Is there a way to configure the phone to direct all calls through a wireless router, when the router is in range? I would like to make internet-based calls rather than cell-based calls when I am at home.

The reason for this is that I make very few calls away from home. This sort of setup would allow me to pay under $10 per month for all my phone calls, and yet have only a single number.

Currently I use a pay-as-you-go cell phone for when I am out, and Skype for when I am at home, but this is not ideal. I have to juggle two phone numbers, and I have to use my computer to make most calls. This could solve these problems once and for all.

Re:Cheap, Easy Phone Service At Last? (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#28708489)

"Is there a way to configure the phone to direct all calls through a wireless router, when the router is in range?"

Yes, it's called Unlimited HotSpot Calling [t-mobile.com] from T-Mobile. (Note: You may want to double check this with T-Mo, but I believe the phones and plan will work with almost any WiFi AP, not just a T-Mobile HotSpot, though that marketing page doesn't make that very clear).

Plus, with UHC (Also some times called UMA - Unlicensed Mobile Access, or GAN - Generic Access Network), you can seemlessly transition to the Cell network without having to hang up and call back.

The only problem with that package is that the unlimited calling is $10/mo, but they also require you to have a monthly plan which costs at least $40/mo, so you are looking at a minimum of $50/mo. T-Mo actually have a pre-paid program where for $100 you get 1000 minutes (which don't expire for a year), so unless you talk more than 500 minutes/mo it's not really the best deal out there. Also, as others have noted, Boost/Sprint have an unlimited $50/mo package.

Even without unlimited, the truth is that $50/mo buys a LOT of minutes. T-Mo also offers a 1000 minutes/mo plan plus unlimited nights/weekends for $40.

Interestingly, the mobile operators have apparently recently changed their pricing tiers - I could swear a year or two ago they all had $50/mo plans, but now they all have a $40/mo plan and a $60/mo plan but no $50/mo plan (T-Mo technically has a $50/mo plan, but it's the same as the $40/mo plan, plus unlimited T-Mo 2 T-Mo calling which is rather limited in it's usefulness, unless you happen to know a lot of people using T-Mobile).

Re:Cheap, Easy Phone Service At Last? (1)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709389)

The $50/month is what I'm trying to get around. What I currently have is two phones:

1. Skype, which is about $3/month for unlimited calls. (And which I could probably replace with a free service.)
2. Virgin Mobile, which with light use costs less than $10/month.

I'm hoping that there will eventually be a way to combine these two into a single phone, with a single phone number, at about the same price.

Porting numbers... (1)

Stormwave0 (799614) | more than 4 years ago | (#28709443)

Google Voice is a really nice service but the key issue I have with it is that I can't port my number. Sure, I'd love all the extra little perks it offers like visual voice mail, but I won't get any of these features until I tell everyone to use my new Google number. Call me attached and lazy if you will, but that's a fair amount of effort. Let me port my number and then I'll use your services.

That being said I've only used my Grand Central / Google Voice number on two occasions: helping my parents buy a car and buying a car myself. It's fantastic to give them this number and throw it on Do Not Disturb mode. I never had to deal with a single sales call.

If you have T-Mobile and a Blackberry (1)

vaporland (713337) | more than 4 years ago | (#28712051)

You can set your Google Voice number to be your default voicemail answering number. I use it and it's great. It's in the setup for voicemail - you can set the phone number of the answering service to any number you like. I don't know if Verizon, etc, allow this, but I love having customized answering messages for my friends and family.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...