Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Vonage Makes Free Facebook Phone Call App

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the interestinger-and-interestinger dept.

Communications 115

crimeandpunishment writes "Vonage has developed a new application for the iPhone and Android that provides free phone calls between Facebook users. Vonage's CEO says 'Essentially, we've given Facebook a voice.' Users sign in, see a list of Facebook friends who also have the app, and if they tap on a name a call is placed ... and it will go through even if the app isn't running on the friend's phone. The calling, which works over cellular broadband and Wi-Fi, doesn't use calling minutes but will use up data."

cancel ×

115 comments

Anonymous Coward (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142168)

Vonage awesome! Facebook - not so!

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142228)

Vonage awesome! Facebook - not so!

I thought people used Facebook because they did NOT want to talk in person, but rather receive information in an asynchronous way. Same reason why some people prefer chat/SMS/IM over phone calls. Neat gimmick though.

Re:Anonymous Coward (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142576)

I thought people used Facebook because they did NOT want to talk in person, but rather receive information in an asynchronous....

That's an odd assumption to make about millions of people on a service with a popular chat service and mobile phone apps.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

spamking (967666) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142716)

I thought people used Facebook because they did NOT want to talk in person, but rather receive information in an asynchronous....

That's an odd assumption to make about millions of people on a service with a popular chat service and mobile phone apps.

Online chat = talking to a person?

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

Nimloth (704789) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142890)

Online chat != asyncronous.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142896)

Online chat = talking to a person?

Online chat == I don't want to hear your voice?

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33143050)

who said facebook = online chat?

facebook is a ton of things, another of which is a blatant privacy risk, among others.

however, they're not just about chat, or lack of some form of social contact for sure.

Re:Anonymous Coward (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 3 years ago | (#33146038)

nobody did, the assumption was made that facebook = asyncronous, which is incorrect.

Just what I need (1)

jcookeman (843136) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142192)

another Android app to install. Sigh.

Re:Just what I need (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142396)

What is the issue with that?
They make 32GB microsd cards these days.

Re:Just what I need (1)

von_rick (944421) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142612)

Its a good practice to install the applications on the device's internal memory instead of installing it on a removable memory. The advantage of having portable memory cards is that you can plug the card into different devices if you want to share what's on them. However if you have some device specific applications on them, you won't be able to use those apps if your card is being used in a different device.

Re:Just what I need (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#33144224)

I'd much rather use up my 32GB microSD card on my Nexus One than the 200MB of internal storage for apps. I never take the SD card out, because, what's the point? Any data I want to move around I can move on/off the card using 3G or 802.11/g/n

Re:Just what I need (1)

Avuserow (1527203) | more than 3 years ago | (#33145848)

In my Droid (the keyboarded variety), the microSD card is not removable without removing the battery. If I'm sharing data via microSD, it'd require my phone to be powered off. At that point, I don't care about my apps being unavailable.

Anthropomorphized Facebook? (4, Informative)

Captain Spam (66120) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142222)

'Essentially, we've given Facebook a voice.'

He then added, 'But it creeps us out how the only thing it says is "kill me... kill me... kill me..." all day long.'

Re:Anthropomorphized Facebook? (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142724)

I just FB'd your comment. Ha!

-l

Re:Anthropomorphized Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142794)

I just TB'd your mom. Ha!

Re:Anthropomorphized Facebook? (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142842)

You gave her tuberculosis? I told her not to mess around with Yukon Gold!

-l

Facebook's voice (2, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33143086)

red rum! red rum! red rum! red rum!

The great tradeoff (1)

krzysz00 (1842280) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142232)

So, now, if I get all the people I want to call on Facebook and get them to use this app, then we can call each other be buying the $10-15/mo unlimited data plan and buying 0 min/mo. Heck, it's a lot cheaper.

Re:The great tradeoff (3, Insightful)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142274)

sure, if you can actually FIND an unlimited "unlimited" data plan.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142324)

So far my verizon plan is unlimited

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

Delarth799 (1839672) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142710)

Well for now its unlimited. I remember when AT&T stopped offering their unlimited plans back in June there was talk of Verizon possibly following suit. Hopefully they don't drop their unlimited plan but you never know.

Re:The great tradeoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142434)

While the GP is going for the gold, who cares about unlimited? You can do an awful lot of talking on a limited data plan for cheaper than voice minutes cost.

Skype says it uses 3-16 KB/s. Take the worst case. That's 6250 minutes on my $30 / month 6 GB/month plan, assuming by GB they mean 1,000,000 KB.

No wonder you can't buy a reasonably priced data-only plan, except for the iPad, and that one is specifically locked up so you can't use it in something as small and convenient as a phone.

Re:The great tradeoff (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142664)

I think most people are just afraid of the ridiculous overcharge fees. If it blocked access and required a phone call or tap to go over, limited would probably be a lot more popular.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142864)

Skype severely lies.

I live in a place where my DSL is capped to 10 gb/month making monitoring usage an absolute necessity.

Skype eats around 40kb/s most of the time if anyone is actually talking. Droops down to 5-8kb/s if the line is muted on both ends. Throw an actual land line into the mix and that drives it up to 60-70kb/s.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#33144250)

My T-Mobile plan is unlimited, and it's $30/month. Also, I can get a CLEAR "Apple device" wifi hotspot for $25/month to month. They say it only works with Apple devices, but I'm fairly certain they're not using the MAC address to determine if the device can connect or not.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33144554)

Also, I can get a CLEAR "Apple device" wifi hotspot for $25/month to month. They say it only works with Apple devices, but I'm fairly certain they're not using the MAC address to determine if the device can connect or not.

Could you elaborate on this a bit?

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#33144596)

Elaborate? Hell, I'll bring a link!

http://www.clear.com/spot/ispot?intcmp=1DaySp:HomePage:Carousel [clear.com]

Check it out now though. It might be a one day only special.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33144780)

Thanks, very helpful.

To summarize: WiMAX in very limited areas, or 5GB capp'ed 3G elsewhere.

'Unlimited' is unlimited unless they decide otherwise, then they might unilaterally cancel your account. There's no way to predict what kind of traffic may lead to such cancellation.

It's a shame, most of their terms are quite reasonable up to the point where they cancel you instead of just traffic shaping you - that's the "less profitable customers will be eliminated" clause.

And, yeah, the Apple thing looks like total marketing BS.

Excessive Utilization of Network Resources. ... if excessive use is ongoing or recurring and repeatedly having negative effects on other subscribers of the Service, Clearwire reserves the right to immediately restrict, suspend or terminate your Service without further notice in order to protect the network and minimize congestion caused by the excessive use. While the determination of what constitutes excessive use depends on the specific state of the network at any given time, excessive use is determined by resource consumption relative to that of a typical individual user of the Service and not by the use of any particular application.

Unlimited Use Plans. If you subscribe to a service plan that does not impose limits on the amount of data you may download or upload during a month, you should be aware that such "unlimited" plans are nevertheless subject to the provisions of this AUP. What this means is that all of the provisions described in this AUP, including those that describe how Clearwire may perform reasonable network management such as reducing the data rate of bandwidth intensive users during periods of congestion, will apply to your use of the Service. The term "unlimited" means that we will not place a limit on how much data you upload or download during a month or other particular period, however, it does not mean that we will not take steps to reduce your data rate during periods of congestion or take other actions described in this AUP when your usage is negatively impacting other subscribers to our Service.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 3 years ago | (#33146066)

Clear would work with anything, you just bought into their marketing.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#33146110)

You misunderstand. They specifically market the device in that link (the only hotspot device they sell that supports $25/month to month unlimited data) as an Apple product only device. On their website, they specifically say it can only be used with Apple devices. While it *may* work on any other devices, and not be checking the manufacturer side of a MAC address, I don't want to spend $30 to buy it and find out.

The other Clear hotspot devices that are $40+ month are marketed as supporting any device.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#33146124)

The link I thought was in my original post:
http://www.clear.com/spot/ispot?intcmp=1DaySp:HomePage:Carousel [clear.com]

What devices can I connect with my iSpot?
It’s easy to use the iPadTM, iPod Touch®, and iPhone® with iSpot. Right now, you’re probably saying “I want it.”

What if I want to connect my laptop?
iSpot was built and optimized by CLEAR for Apple mobile devices (although Apple isn’t likely to tell you that) . If you want to experience the same kind of tummy-twisting speed on your laptops, cameras or other smartphones, there are some sweet Spot products that will make you very happy.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#33147498)

sure, if you can actually FIND an unlimited "unlimited" data plan.

My Evo has 100% truly unlimited data on Sprint. Yes, Sprint normally caps at 5 GB (like most companies do), but they actually have in the fine print for the Evo that your $10 premium data fee no only lets you access 4G but also gives you 100% unlimited data.

Re:The great tradeoff (2, Insightful)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142292)

So, now, if I get all the people I want to call on Facebook and get them to use this app, then we can call each other be buying the $10-15/mo unlimited data plan and buying 0 min/mo. Heck, it's a lot cheaper.

Which is precisely why you can't buy a plan that has no voice and only data. The ultra-cheap $15 data plan is in addition to the clusterf**k that is your monthly base price, plus the tons of fees added. Sure, you can get a broadband card, but try sticking one of those things in your shiny new iphone. Every phone operator, pretty much the world over, is a thieving a-hole.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

byersjus (987526) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142700)

Sprint actually offers data-only for phones (including the new EVO), its called Sprint Relay: http://www.sprintrelay.com/ [sprintrelay.com] I tried to get it, but its only for the hearing impaired. To complete your order you have to provide a video phone # so they can sign to you. I considered finding someone on Craigslist that could sign for me, but I eventually just caved and got the regular extortion plan (including the $10 4G fee despite not living in a covered area and never turning that radio on). Try walking into a store and asking the rep about data-only plans for phones; the looks on their faces are hilarious. Once you want that look to gloss over start talking about your home asterisk server, SIP softphone applications, and the utter pointlessness of cellular voice service.

Re:The great tradeoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142520)

What I'm waiting for is a phone without having to pay for the Voice calls! All the telcos are currently screwing every one with high voice/data bills, knowing very well that in a few more years their voice networks will become useless and all the calls will be routed using VOIP. If there was a iPhone or Andriod without having to pay for the the voice, but only pay for the data plan, I'd go for that. I can then use Vonage or Packet8 to make calls when I need to without having to pay for 2 seperate plans. The closest that comes to this is the iPad with the $25 AT&T data plan, but I'd rather have this on an iPhone as well.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142698)

By the time all voice calls will be VOIP, people will be making apps that let you use the free voice minutes that phones will be giving out.

Re:The great tradeoff (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142912)

The 4G standard says that all transmissions must be data, including voice. It is true that the providers are going to milk 3G as long as they can, but all-VOIP isn't really that far away.

Re:The great tradeoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142606)

$15/mo unlimited data plan...

ROFL
That HAHAHEHEE may be HEHEHOO what it's worth HAHAHRHRAHHAA but AAHAHAA good luck HHHHEEHHHA finding it. hmhmhmmmm

How nice of them..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142246)

The calling, which works over cellular broadband and Wi-Fi, doesn't use calling minutes but will use up data."

Isn't data usually more expensive? How nice of them!

Re:How nice of them..... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142420)

Data is cheaper by far. If you could get a plan without voice minutes this would be worth something.

Re:How nice of them..... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#33145536)

For some of us, no, data is not more expensive.

Wah! (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142254)

But not for the Pre? Meh. Sometimes... just sometimes it sucks having the best smartphone OS. Most other times it's quite teh awesome. *sigh*

Re:Wah! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142490)

Maybe you and the Amiga users can go have some pity sex.

Re:Wah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142572)

I'm pretty sure Amiga users are asexual.

Re:Wah! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33144360)

How interesting - a spacetime anomaly has resulted in a 286 DOS fanboy's advocacy to be posted to Slashdot twenty years later.

Well, this may come as a shock to you, but I'm afraid today everyone prefers using machines with GUIs and graphics - and even sound, yes - as standard. We even consider multitasking to be useful. (Well, except for the iPhone users - seems that Apple could never write an OS that could manage that...)

Re:Wah! (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33144062)

What on earth? The Amiga hasn't been around for years, and when it was, plenty of people used it, especially as a home computer. What next, are you going to make jokes on the lack of users today of classic MacOS or DOS? It's 2010, not 1990.

Maybe you and the Iphone users can have some "pity sex", you mean - Apple are the company with about 3% market share in phones, and even in the ill-defined smartphone category, they're fourth. And that's with the Iphones still available to buy, unlike the Amiga.

Re:Wah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142766)

not for the Pre?

Nope - I guess they didn't see a need to write an app for both of you.

Sometimes... just sometimes it sucks having the best smartphone OS.

What would that have to do with the Pre?

Re:Wah! (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33144586)

Indeed, they were more concerned with writing an app for the three Iphone users.

(I have to laugh that with Palm, it's continually compared to the Iphone in terms of how it's sold far less - and I've seen such comparisons in the media too; yet no one is willing to compare the Iphone to RIM or Symbian in terms of sales. Oh no, then for some reason, actual sales don't count, and we have to wheel out vague terms like "mindshare" as being important. Even places like the BBC play this trick in their phone coverage.)

Prediction (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33145112)

To follow on from my comment - I predict that when Android is consistently and clearly outselling the Iphone platform (and it will soon enough), Iphone fans will no longer make any mention of sales when talking about comparing Android (they still will with Palm and Windows mobile though).

When Android was selling less than the Iphones, as with Palm and Windows mobile, Iphone fans made no end of comments of how Android was selling less, to claim the Iphone being better. Now the sales figures are close, it's something that's hotly debated. Yet when Android soars into third place, leaving Apple in fourth, all mention of sales figures compared with Android will mysteriously be forgetten - as with Symbian and RIM - instead fans will resort to comments like "But the Iphone has more mindshare than Android" or "But me and my friends have Iphones, I'm going to ignore those stats" or "But look, one week after the Iphone 5 was released, it was the best selling phone in some random country I've never even been to - that counts more than overall sales, right?". (Yes, that last one happened [slashdot.org] - funny how we've never had any stories since on what the best selling phones are for any other month, either in Japan, or for the countless other countries in the world...)

Re:Prediction (1)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 3 years ago | (#33146992)

funny how we've never had any stories since on what the best selling phones are for any other month, either in Japan, or for the countless other countries in the world

Perhaps we should:

Apple iPhone Captures 72% of Japan Smartphone Market (April 23, 2010)
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-23/apple-iphone-captures-72-of-japan-smartphone-market-update3-.html [businessweek.com]

Note that this was before the iPhone 4 was released.

Re:Wah! (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33144120)

I also note they completely ignore the two largest smartphone platforms - Symbian and RIM. It sucks having the most popular smartphone OS.

I suppose we should be lucky they even considered Android. It's depressing how many companies (and even public funded organisations like the BBC and UK Government) are only writing applications for the Iphone, which is fourth in terms of sales, and also fourth in terms of how fast those sales are growing ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1741954&cid=33130584 [slashdot.org] ). Symbian and Android are increasing their sales by a factor of two faster than Apple, and RIM are also slightly ahead of Apple. Not to mention that among phones as a whole, Iphones comprise only about 3% of the entire market (and Android has yet to make it much beyond that figure). Given that both of you need to have an Iphone or Android phone running this app, it seems particularly limited. A phone service between only a mere few per cent of the population - great...

Re:Wah! (1)

schon (31600) | more than 3 years ago | (#33146544)

I also note they completely ignore the two largest smartphone platforms - Symbian and RIM

Wrong. That would be Android [conceivablytech.com] and RIM in the US (where Vonage is based), or Symbian and Android [canalys.com] worldwide.

Java app would have been nice, but... (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142264)

Naturally, Nokia and Blackberry get left out in the cold. Whether that is a good thing remains to be seen.

Re:Java app would have been nice, but... (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142354)

Aren't Android apps essentially Java apps? Would this be that hard to port, in theory?

(Probably the answer is yes, but I'm interested in the why.)

java apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142752)

Yes they are. Java apps leveraging the Android libraries but also with access to a good batch of the Java mainstays.

Re:Java app would have been nice, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33143094)

I don't know if this one is in Java, but they are not required to be. Many apps have native libraries that contain most of the logic (eg: Adobe Reader, Facebook main IIRC). The Java frontends are tiny by comparison.

Re:Java app would have been nice, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33143266)

Android doesn't compile down to Java bytecode but rather to the Dalvik virtual machine. The main programming language is essentially Java, but it relies on a custom framework instead of J2ME or J2SE.

Re:Java app would have been nice, but... (1)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 3 years ago | (#33146442)

Android doesn't include the entire set of Java class libraries, in particular the user interface libraries. It instead includes its own user interface libraries along with other utility libraries. It is possible that the Vonage app includes a lot of code that can run on either platform, but the UI and other parts will need to be rewritten.

Re:Java app would have been nice, but... (2, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33144186)

Hear hear. I wonder what goes through the head of these app writers. It's a choice of:

* Write for J2ME, and have a market of two billion Java phones, capturing near 100% of the market (basically everything except those phones that can't handle it, like dumb phones and Iphones).
* Write for Symbian and get the largest "smartphone" market share - the largest platform after J2ME.
* Write for Blackberry, and get the largest "smartphone" market share in the US.
* Or ... write for Iphone, and get a whopping 3% of the market.

At least they included Android, which has the point that it's growing fastest. But that can't be said for Apple, who are now fourth place, both in terms of actual sales, and the rate at which those sales are increasing ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1741954&cid=33130584 [slashdot.org] ) - and there's no excuse for Symbian and Blackberry to be ignored so often.

It's especially frustrating when public funded organisations like the BBC or UK Government only release Iphone apps. When they only supported Windows (e.g., BBC's Iplayer), there were uproars! And at least there they could say that Windows was the largest platform, with over 90% market share! But yet when they release only for the Iphone, covering just a few per cent of users, and one of the smaller platforms, apparently that's perfectly fine...

Re:Java app would have been nice, but... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33144218)

Though, to be fair I see that Vonage are planning a Blackberry port. But still no mention of Symbian. Perhaps they're going in reverse order of popularity...

Re:Java app would have been nice, but... (1)

HunterD (13063) | more than 3 years ago | (#33144644)

It's simple. Writing apps for blackberry and symbian is expensive, and developing for them is non trivial.

Developing apps for android and the iphone is simple.

Just as an example, try to figure out how to set up a development environment and produce a simple application on all 4 platforms.

By the time you are finished on Android, you will make it to the store to buy the macbook for developing on iphone.

By the time you are done on iphone, you *may* probably will have j2ME installed, won't have a working virtual device, and will still be trying to figure out which CSR jars you need installed.

Maybe if Symbian or Blackberry were to create a simple to set up dev environment, there would be more developers.

Re:Java app would have been nice, but... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33145022)

It's simple. Writing apps for blackberry and symbian is expensive, and developing for them is non trivial.

Your evidence for this claim? Symbian uses standard C++, with the SDK being Qt [nokia.com] . Having recently started learning Qt for Symbian, I have to say it's one of the best application toolkits I've come across, and I'm tempted to switch to it for my Windows development too.

(Possibly you are thinking of the old Symbian C++, that apparently was a bit harder to learn?)

As for expense, Qt is free, and the development environment available on a range of platforms.

Developing apps for android and the iphone is simple.

For Android it's simple - but not more simple. For Iphone, yeah, you only have to learn a new language, and buy a whole new machine from Apple for it... not to mention paying Apple for the privilege of releasing apps on your phone. And you say Symbian is expensive?

Maybe if Symbian or Blackberry were to create a simple to set up dev environment, there would be more developers.

Golly, if only they had something like that [nokia.com] . Yet even if this wasn't the case, requiring that developers learn a whole new language and buy an Apple PC is evidently not an excuse for not supporting the Iphone, so I don't see these excuses would be relevant anyway.

Re:Java app would have been nice, but... (2, Informative)

grouchomarxist (127479) | more than 3 years ago | (#33147018)

I don't know the Symbian SDK, but according to wiki it uses a non-standard version of C++.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbian_OS#Developing_on_Symbian_OS [wikipedia.org]

Objective-C is a new language, but it isn't particularly difficult to learn. If you know object oriented programming it takes perhaps a week to learn and a little while longer to get used to. What takes longer is the SDK, but I think that's true of all platforms.

Wikipedia is out of date - Qt is now Symbian SDK (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33149146)

I don't know the Symbian SDK, but according to wiki

Then Wikipedia is out of date. And indeed, if you bother to read the top of your own link:

"This article is about the historical Symbian OS. For the current, open source Symbian platform descended from Symbian OS and S60, see Symbian platform."

For heaven's sake, I even posted direct links to Nokia! Nice to see that a mod favours Wikipedia over the primary source - who can't even be bothered to read the link posted! (Particularly ironic given that Wikipedia is usually hated round here).

And if you do want Wikipedia, try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(framework) [wikipedia.org] :

"Nokia acquired Trolltech ASA in 2008 and changed the name first to Qt Software, then to Qt Development Frameworks. Since then it focused on Qt development to turn it into the main development platform for its devices, including a port to the Symbian S60 platform. Version 1.0 of the Nokia Qt SDK was released on 23 June 2010."

What takes longer is the SDK, but I think that's true of all platforms.

Not with Qt. It's incredibly easy to get to grips with.

Honestly, the amount of Apple RDF here is getting depressing. By all means prefer your beloved Iphone if you prefer, but don't spread false claims about Symbian development, when you clearly are years out of date, and have already been proven wrong with references. Otherwise I'm going to start criticising the Iphone for not being able to even copy/paste, do MMS, or multitask; and claim that Macs still can't multitask either.

Re:Wikipedia is out of date - Qt is now Symbian SD (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33149200)

Clarification: actually I've come across those Wikipedia pages before, and there is confusion over which page refers to what version of Symbian. Indeed, Wikipedia suggests that my 5800 is running Symbian^1, which is apparently also the same as the latest S60 anyway.

But note that Qt is now the SDK even for the older Symbian platforms like S60 (even my old 5800 runs it fine, as well as dirt cheap phones like the 5230), and not just Symbian^4.

So Wikipedia is out of date, and needs to be updated. I'll do it later (using the refs that you decided to ignore).

Re:Java app would have been nice, but... (1)

dcherryholmes (1322535) | more than 3 years ago | (#33145658)

Don't forget the pre. We're left out, too.

Are they using this to data mine Facebook acounts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142282)

I need some asurances from Vonage that they are not going to look at my Facebook data before I install this.

We know how this is going to end up, right? (2, Insightful)

boneclinkz (1284458) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142294)

"Hello. This is automated announcement from Fraternityville. Your friend M-A-L-C-O-M-B request that you send him a one case of beer. The cost is 10 fratbucks. Authorize?"

Going to far? (2, Interesting)

PmanAce (1679902) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142322)

Is it me or is the Facebook universe getting out of control?

Re:Going to far? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142388)

You left the "t" off the end of your subject line.

Re:Going to far? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142468)

How's that? This thing is basically a VOIP app that uses Facebook as an address book. Facebook IS an address book, except that it lets your contacts update their entries and decorate them with pictures, videos and assorted crap.

Re:Going to far? (1)

spamking (967666) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142748)

Crap being the key word here.

errr (2, Insightful)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142778)

That you called it a 'universe' might answer your own question.

Don't need it. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142350)

I have a flat $50 monthly fee; I'm not charged minutes.

Re:Don't need it. (1)

wannabgeek (323414) | more than 3 years ago | (#33145666)

Can you call international?

I wonder why Apple authorized this on iPhone (1)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142372)

Skype is limited to WiFi. But this would work on 3G? Wouldn't that be cannibalizing revenue from minutes for them?

Re:I wonder why Apple authorized this on iPhone (1)

Nimloth (704789) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142512)

Apple has revenue on minutes how?

Re:I wonder why Apple authorized this on iPhone (1)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142688)

Indirectly through their agreement with AT&T?
Isn't that the reason why Skype is limited to WiFi?

Re:I wonder why Apple authorized this on iPhone (1)

Nimloth (704789) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142972)

Nope. Apple makes money on the hardware sold.
The carrier makes money on the subscription and services.
Most carriers block skype service on their networks.

Re:I wonder why Apple authorized this on iPhone (1)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | more than 3 years ago | (#33143018)

I said "indirectly", assuming that Apple and AT&T have a shared interest in making revenue on their iPhones. If iPhone users were calling through Facebook or Skype, AT&T would be less enthusiastic about selling iPhones, thus hurting Apple.

Then again, I could be totally wrong. It just seems logical.

Gee I wonder... (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142448)

"Hello, Vonage? AT&T here, our customers aren't burning through their bandwidth caps and we're losing money, would you min dmaking an app encouraging them to incur bandwidth overuse charges? Thanks much, we'll make it up to you."

Re:Gee I wonder... (3, Interesting)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142738)

If some can offer rollover minutes, maybe it is time for some to offer rollover gigabytes?

Grateful my car doesn't have a gas tank that resets to zero every week or month...

Corporations get to buy and sell pollution credits or depreciation in some cases. Maybe we should be able to buy, give, or sell each other extra bandwidth/minutes???

Re:Gee I wonder... (1)

FlyMysticalDJ (1660959) | more than 3 years ago | (#33145706)

That's a good point. In that same line, are there off peak data usage times? Surely they have a time that the data network is under a lighter load. Maybe it's just not as much of a time though because people will use the internet later than they would decide not to call people anymore.

Vonage = not the first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33142452)

Babytel did it a cpl years ago:

http://bit.ly/9a700O

Just as... (1)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142514)

I'm about to kick Vonage to the curb. My $24.99 a month line now costs $35 per month. I'm also preparing to tell Cox to take a hike. My $49 service is now $58.99 a month.

Re:Just as... (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142638)

I hear ya. 8x8 (formerly Packet 8) kept raising prices on my formerly $19.99 plan and I finally dropped em for mobile-only (we have 4 lines between us and the kids). Then, AT&T decided it was time to bump the pricing on their 200 channel service. We dropped them for Netflix. I was especially glad after I found out that half our cable money was going to ESPN which I had never watched. I did end up watching some World Cup games online via ESPN, but I don't need their content 99% of the time.

-l

Stand up for yourself (1)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | more than 3 years ago | (#33143182)

I had a $29.95 standard internet (and only internet) from Time Warner.
My bill rose from $29.95 to $36.95 and then to $39.95 in 3 months. Customer service told me my initial price encompassed a discount (which was never mentioned to me neither by the sales department nor on the bill). I was also told my next bill would be $45.99.

Then I asked them to terminate my service. At which point they offered an extended discount bringing back the service to $33 for a year. Not $29.95, but better than $45.99. It's worth a try anyway.

Re:Stand up for yourself (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#33143300)

I have a library. It's free. And unlike television, it makes me smarter.

Re:Stand up for yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33146994)

You don't watch mythbusters?

Re:Stand up for yourself (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 3 years ago | (#33149628)

The Uverse lady I talked to when canceling didn't give one crap that I was canceling. In fact, she tried to upsell me to a more expensive package before giving up and just canceling. She didn't even offer a discount which I had been willing to consider. So, Netflix got my business.

-l

Ooma. Get it bitches. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33145554)

I liked Vonage compared to AT&T. However, I ditched them as well and went with an Ooma. $200 up front and another $40 for the number port. Now it's less than $15/year in fees and taxes.

More ports (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142532)

Versions for BlackBerry phones and for Windows and Mac computers are coming, he said.

I cross fingers and hope that a WebOS version will appear too. Though I won't hold my breath.

Also, given the "all of my friends are already on it" nature of FaceBook, this application has a good chance of competing with Skype.

I just hope that, for the call itself, it uses some standard protocol (SIP, H323, Jingle, etc.) instead of some proprietary shit.
And given that Facebook is moving toward XMPP support [facebook.com] for their chat system, I suspect that Jingle could be the easy solution that they went for.
(If both end points are using the Vonage app, simply negociate a Jingle call through the already available XMPP chat connection. Otherwise use a free VoIP-to-Phone broker to call the recipient using the FaceBook profile's number)

Thus it will also be easier to develop a Linux version of it. Say for example add a "voice chat" capability to the existing Pidgin Plugin [google.com] .

Re:More ports (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33147292)

I cross fingers and hope that a WebOS version will appear too. Though I won't hold my breath.

I don't think there is much demand for Vonage on HP's WebOS printers. :-)

Facebook already causes enough brain damage. (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142566)

Doctors warn that exposure to Facebook harms the brain. [slashdot.org]

That's all we need - people so used to Facebooks' 420 character limit making phone calls.

"Hi. I'm eating my lunch. Bye!" Click.
"I like that!" Click.
"Poke!" Click.
"Cool youtube video. Check out the link!" Click.
"I'm getting a pedicure. Pics." Click.
"I *so* hate my mom!" Click.
"Sorry, wrong number. I was trying to call farmville!" Click.
"Friend me!" Click.
"Why did you send me a friend request? Are you stalking me?" Click.
"Why didn't you send me a friend request?" Click.
"Hi. Just calling all my friends to make sure they don't miss me. Bye!" Click.
"Why did you unfriend me?" Click.
"Why did you unfriend me?" Click.
"Why did you unfriend me?" Click.
"Why did you unfriend me?" Click.
"Why did you unfriend me?" Click.
"Why did you unfriend me?" Click.
"I'M COMING OVER WITH AN AX AND A SHOTGUN TO TEACH YOU A LESSON YOU ANTISOCIAL BITCH!!!" Click.
(Dials 911) "Hi, you have reached 9-1-1. Than you for friending us. If you need anything, just post it to facebook because that's all we do all day. Have a nice day! Bye!" Click.

I use more data than minutes (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#33142650)

Seems like many of us use more data now days than voice, so maybe we'll swing back the other way and make iPhone and Android apps that use voice minutes so we don't eat up our data plan!

VoIP and asterisk (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#33143326)

if your inclined to tinker and think $24 per month is a rip off and would rather pay $0.02 per minute.

Not World Plan Friendly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33145130)

This app is not so useful for Vonage World Plan users.

There is another third party app called vOnGo (Vonage on the go) that lets you use your Vonage World Plan from iPhone. It will use your cell phone minutes though, but you are making international calls at domestic rates.

Here is the app url. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vongo/id352307701?mt=8

Re:Not World Plan Friendly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33145186)

Hmm... interesting app. Worked like a charm for me, but not sure if Vonage allows this.

Here is the clickable URL
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/vongo/id352307701?mt=8/ [apple.com]

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...