Blog Post

Meet Google, Your Phone Company

Stay on Top of Emerging Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

[qi:gigaom_icon_voip] Can Google (s Goog) be your phone company? The answer is yes. I came to that conclusion after I met with Vincent Paquet, co-founder of GrandCentral (a company acquired by Google) and now a member of the Google Voice team. Earlier today he stopped by our office to show the mobile app versions of its Google Voice service for Blackberry (s RIMM) and Android. Google recently announced that it was going to make the Voice service widely available to users in the U.S. soon.

These mobile versions of the Google Voice service will allow folks to not only manage their Google Voice connections –- to access and playback voice mails, send and receives SMS messages and read message transcripts — but also make local and long distance calls from mobile phones. The apps are fully integrated with each phone’s contacts, so you can call via Google Voice straight from your address book. This is how it works:

androidgooglevoiceThe mobile app for Google Voice uses the regular PSTN connection to place a call to Google Voice, which then places a call out to the person you need to reach. Since these calls (and SMS messages) originate from your Google Voice, they display your Google Voice number for the recipients. The service needs a data connection but it isn’t necessary to have a Wi-Fi connection to place and receive calls. The wireless number you buy from the cell phone company becomes less relevant.

The Google Voice app essentially reduces the cell phone carrier to a dumb pipe. While the BlackBerry application is interesting, it’s the Android application that shows that Google has bigger designs. I have been playing around with the Android App for about an hour or so and I can see the broader implications. When I was setting up the app, one of the options I was given: to make all calls through Google Voice. And that’s when I thought to myself: Oh! OH!

The app is so tightly enmeshed with Android OS and the address book and other apps, you hardly think that you’re using Google Voice. If Google bundles the Google Voice app with Android and sells it to makers of cheaper feature phones, it can start to insert itself between the consumers and wireless companies.

This “man in the middle” position is Google’s strength. The company has inserted itself between consumers and information via its search offering and profited handsomely from it. Why can’t it do the same with this voice offering? There is anecdotal evidence that some consumers might actually be happy paying for their mobile service by listening to advertisements.

To be sure, Google Voice isn’t the first such service. Truphone and a handful of other startups offer similar services, but Google’s sheer size is what makes this a pretty interesting move. They also have a mobile OS and connections with handset makers such as HTC to get serious traction. In this summer of a lot of hot air from Google — Google Wave and Google Chrome OS, for example — this is the first interesting product with larger implications. Suddenly the idea of Google as my phone company doesn’t sound so preposterous.

90 Responses to “Meet Google, Your Phone Company”

  1. MaDRiDy

    As I know this technology is already in use “VOIP” for the mobiles but I think the google wave will add more meaning of mobility and connections.

  2. les madras

    intermediation is sustainable only when it offers value to both parties being intermediated. in the case of search, publishers allow google to crawl their pages since they get a traffic as a benefit. if that were not the case, they would simply shut them off.

    what benefit does google voice offer the carrier?

      • garylyn

        I’m using the combination of gVoice and Gizmo5, and have cut my “minutes” in half. I still receive calls to my mobile through Verizon, even those routed through gVoice. But now i make calls through gVoice/Gizmo that i would have otherwise placed through Verizon.

        I’m actually thinking of switching from Verizon “unlimited minutes” to the metroPCS “unlimited with Web access” for $35/ mo. gVoice solves a lot of problems that would have otherwise complicated that decision.


  3. I don’t like the idea of Google being my phone company but I definitely would love to see VOIP become a standard. There would be so much you can do with it-track, screen, record, transcribe, etc. Way cheaper too.

  4. The value to Goog isn’t that they can make you listen to ads, the value is that they learn more about you and target you with more relevant ads on platforms where ads are accepted, such as at the top of your gmail and in your searches on the pc/smartphone. Here’s how it will work;

    -You place a call through your smartphone/GV app.

    -Goog transcribes your voice call and creates a transcript (it does this already)

    -Goog also gets your general location via your phone’s gps or cell tower id (not sure if it can do this yet, but I bet they’re working on it)

    -Goog matches keywords and location from your transcripts to your next internet search. If that search is on your phone, all the better, goog has already matched your phone with the scripts. If you do it on the computer and are signed in to your goog account, they target you that way.

    -Your goog search provides much more targeted ads to you and is able to charge more for it because you are much more likely to buy/subscribe to the advertised product.

  5. John V

    I’m interested in Google Voice as a SMS alternative (first). My family is on Verizon for five phones. None of us use SMS very much, partly due to high charges, so we just pay per text. To switch to a plan would cost from $5 (250 msgs) to $20 (5000 messages) per line. So that would be another $25 to $100 per month to Verizon. Not happening!

    Since I have a smartphone, I should be able to use the web interface to Voice, and send/receive SMS for free. Other family members are usually around WiFi and could generally just use a laptop. While this might start out being somewhat clumsy, I think phones/software will improve and it should be seamless next year (maybe with an Android phone).

    I guess I’m holding a grudge against Verizon. When we first got phones that supported SMS, the cost was two or three cents per text. Then they raised it to a dime, finally to 15 / 25 cents. All for something that fits in the existing cell tech and shouldn’t cost extra. I hope they lose this cash cow within five years.

  6. Why does it take Google to wake everyone up. This type of service has been around for a decade. Companies like have been offering unified communications for a really long time. I have to say that while FREE appeals to the masses, this really seems to be a master scheme between the iphone & Android. When a mobile device can operate without a carrier, then lookout… until then, go with an established service like that will respect your privacy while providing all the same features.

  7. Totally agree on GV being in the middle, adding incremental value. There are a lot of interesting use cases for a service like this. The barrier to entry is very low, so we should see others come along trying it.

    But, how does Google Voice be your phone company, when it requires that you have a real phone company’s service in order for it to work? Will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the mainstream market.

    • Papacat

      My understanding, with the new GV app, is that it does not actually require a PHONE line, but only a high-speed internet pipe. So, in theory, you only need an ISP with this app. If you have a 3G blackberry and can get a data-only plan (no voice) you could (theoretically) use this app and your 3G data plan to handle all your telephony without any phone service.

      It’s basically a VOIP solution with multi-ring and some other very nice bells and whistles.

      The kicker is that this will bite hard into some carrier’s profit structure if it becomes really popular, which means they would have to find a way to charge more for the 3G/4G pipeline.

      • coldbrew

        I already pay $60/mo for 5GB of data, no voice (3Gmodem+wifi), and I can’t imagine them charging more. I’ll just hope Clearwire shows up where I live at that point or move to something like Cricket.

      • My understanding is that it uses the data connection for accessing and controlling the service, but uses third party call control to bridge calls together that are connected via standard PSTN. So, when you call someone using GV, it uses your data connection out to the service, which calls your cell number, then calls the destination number, then bridges the calls together. The voice is not going over the data connection. If I am mistaken, then I would have to rethink my comment.

      • Papacat

        Hmm, no Chris, I think you are right. It does look to require a PSTN connection in addition to the 3G/WiFi/4G. For those with Friends & Family plans who can put their GV number on the list of unlimited minutes contacts, it may have more value. Too bad.

  8. Nilanjan

    Actually the Google Voice (previously GrandCentral) is supported by open source developers and there is a Grand Central Dialer – called DialCentral for Nokia’s Maemo based NIT’s.

    So if you get a free number from Gizmo (SIP) the Nokia N810 internat tablet (which is not a voice phone) now becomes a regular voice phone too when connected to the internet thru Goole Voice based DialCentral software.

    Essentially anybody can now call me on my GV number and GV forward the calls to my Gizmo number which dials my N810 tablet – and I can take the call on the tablet.

    I can completely eliminate the expensive ISP based Voice phone – as long as I am connected to the internet via Wifi (or 3G)

  9. Papacat

    WinMo version? So many of us using Windows Mobile phones are itching for an app like this. Any ETA or plans for a WinMo version? Please?

  10. I’ve been a Grand Central customer and now a Google Voice customer. I find that the product works mostly as claimed, but there are some strange bugs. The most annoying is to receive a random phone call (from literally nobody) and not be able to terminate it. Google doesn’t seem to have an answer for this. And then there is the dropped call problem, but that happens to most cell carriers, too.

    But all in all, it is a great product for the solo worker out there who has to be available. It certainly is better than MSFT’s Unified Communications. My only fear is how good and reliable will it be when millions of people sign up?

  11. on the topic of paying for mobile service through listening to ads; this is my take. people love ad supported VOIP if the listen to ads on there end of the link; they do not want to force the person on the other end of the line to hear any ads. they also do not want to involve there contacts in any type of viral marketing campaign or even do anything the lets there contacts know about there way of making phone calls. it needs to be 100% transparent to the person on the other end of line. if they do that people will be happy with ad supported calling

  12. one huge problem with is that you lose all your free in network calling. despite the issue this really needs to work over 3G so that you can bypass the carrier per minute charges.

    would also be nice if google came up with a free head on competitor to majicjack and/or ooma.

  13. Doug Mohney

    Assuming your cell phone company will A) Allow the app and/or B) not roll out their own offerings is kinda short-sighted.

    Did Vince say how many years Google Voice will spend in beta?

  14. Om is right – Technology wise this sorta boring, plenty of companies have been dere, done dat. HOWEVER – Google is on EVERY computer and that makes it real interesting.

    I find it amusing that the app uses the PSTN to make calls, that is so 90’s more like a calling card. Once they go pure IP they could really make an indent, but right now it doesn’t look more than a fancy “one number” solution.

    • Moshe

      I am sure you and others on this thread are aware of the LTE and its implications. With about 15+ android phones, LTE in two years …. I think this is a disruptive step. It doesn’t seem that way right now, but I feel it is going to be more obvious as we push towards that future.

  15. devarajaswami

    Even though I think cell phone carriers stink, I am OK with them as long they stick to providing simple phone service and don’t intrude into apps.

    By the same token, I am OK with apps/SW companies [e.g, Google or Yahoo or Microsoft] provide me apps but will not let them handle other parts of my life, e.g., handling my phone calls, providing me TV service etc.

    Same principle for TV – get TV service from one company [Comcast, DISH, etc] but better to get home phone service from another [AT&T/SBC, Verizon, etc].

    Keep ’em separate, I say, that way
    * our lives are not beholden or controlled by one company,
    * we don’t let any one company dominate the market and “become too big to fail” – we all know now where that ends – AIG anyone?
    * the healthy competition keeps prices down because no one company gets a monopoly on more than one aspect of our lives
    * outages / failures in one company’s infrastructure affect only a segment of our lives
    * we encourage each company to focus on its core competencies and keep innovating to get our business

    Downside is that initially it costs a bit more for us because lower initial prices via “bundling” is the hook that expanding companies throw to get us addicted and beholden to them. But they invariably either raise prices afterward or take us for granted and let the services stagnate [anyone old enough to have followed Comcast or other cable companies for ten years will know what I mean. Another more recent example: when was the last time Google made a meaningful improvement to their search service? – I mean something that makes me feel: “great, Google’s search results are so much more accurate these days, they’re really working hard to improve their offering”].

    • I see your point to a certain extent, but when a company like Google makes things so convenient and it benefits me so much, you can’t just say no.

      For example, my iGoogle page has the following gadgets:

      -Google Voice -I can go through my call lists, check vmails, send/receive/view texts, etc.
      -Google Latitude – I can see where my friends are in the city and what they’re up to.
      -Google Calendar- Check my schedule and set dates, meetings etc.
      -Gmail – email obviously
      -Contacts – I can manage all of my contacts information (which syncs to the contacts in my G1)
      -And of course the weather and the news

      Now, I have a g1 phone, so any changes I make to any one of these applications automatically syncs to my phone. It makes things so much more convenient for me to open up one page and have everything right there on one page. And of course, it’s a Google page, which is exactly what Google wants. So in the meantime, I’m happy with Google basically owning my life. ;)

      • devarajaswami


        Happy to know you’re OK with Google owning your online life ;-)

        If the current cost of using one big “everything” service is affordable now, then one is perfectly justified going for it, of course. Only thing is to consider the cost of switching away from this Almighty service [either totally or a part] in the future…

        The situation can be viewed another way – as a tradeoff between short-term and long-term costs to oneself. Typically short-term costs are best minimized by going for the Almighty service. Long term, costs are much greater by going for this route, due to
        * Cost and effort of switching away [how can you give all this stuff up? And how are you going to move all your emails/contacts/texts/schedules/…. to one or more different services in case a much better offering comes along later – which for SW-like stuff is about once in a few years]?
        * Suffering poor service from your current provider because the Almighty will for sure take existing believers for granted and quality will suffer – their focus is on getting the next new believer/customer
        * Enduring increasing cost of using the service – when the service achieves a high market share, the only way to increase its revenues is to raise prices.

        So Google away, but keep considering ways to escape the reservation, just in case :-)

    • lidders

      Excellent point – how are they going to monetise this? Advertising? Keywords? Much less easy to see how they can make this work for them compared to text based services which can be analysed – such as gmail – compared to voice, which can’t be… yet.

  16. One thing to keep in mind is that placing calls through Google Voice will invalidate your mobile-to-mobile calling feature and you could get a nasty surprise.

    On the flip side, if you carrier offers a My Faves tyrpe plan (as T-Mo does), you could theoretically get unlimited outbound and inbound calling. (Set your GV number as one of your faves.) That’ll be another source of friction and I’d expect them to clamp down on that really hard.

  17. Om I know you pushed this out quick, but I’m expecting a longer thought piece (or three) late this week (or tomorrow?) on this subject… right?

    I’m pretty sure you have more than 3 paragraphs to say about this topic ;)

  18. Venkatesh

    And why would cell phone network companies allow this to work and not cripple it ? Skype over 3G is crippled. Infact I worry these kind off things might slow down adoption of Android. Networks wouldn’t like it and will push back. Google is no apple, to own things end to end. Google basically destroys the market it enters, making sure nobody but itself is making money, while apple creates new markets by its innovation.

    This is not necessarily a good thing. Google doesn’t make capital investment in bandwidth/base station etc and just tries to drive the business it enters to the ground. This is not good for the long term wireless business, unless Google is willing to make some capital investments in that area. We wouldn’t be very happy if sprint/t-mobile go out of business and others are not willing to make capital investments get USA the next generation cellphone network.

    Not everything in the world can be replaced by ads :).

    • Venkatesh

      I think the argument for cell phone companies is that this is going to drive up usage of their voice networks. Perhaps force people to upgrade to higher unlimited voice plans.

      On your point #2, I think the points you make are spot on, but it is also good to keep some competitive pressure on the carriers too. As a consumer I like that.

      I totally agree – not everything can be replaced by ads. I hope not.

      • Venkatesh

        Yeah..the networks have been evil for a part of me likes the fact that they are getting some competition. But I don’t like Google’s approach towards things. They lost me with Youtube and since have done things which makes me distrust them completely.

        If google’s history is anything to go by, they might suspend your account for good, with no justification. They will not have a customer care number for you to call and scream if something goes wrong. Why would anybody put their faith in such a company. Adsense account cancellation, gmail account cancellation/reset, Google search penalties, Appengine fiasco etc tells me Google doesn’t care and are worse than the networks if you depend on them for something.

    • Sudz Khawaja

      I don’t think you should/can compare Google and Apple; there will be those who might use the same argument to claim that Apple doesn’t innovate either (MP3 players and mobile phones were around before the iPod and iPhone, etc.).

      I disagree that Google destroys markets it enters; perhaps you mean that markets that Google enters get destroyed? Call it semantics if you will, but I don’t see anything wrong with entering a market, turning it on its head, and then executing the heck out of the business model.

      It all boils down to value creation for the end user; if a business/market no longer provides/creates value for the end user it is ripe to be wrecked and rebuilt. Businesses drive themselves into the ground due to their complacency and lack of innovation.

      I don’t see why this should be bad for the wireless industry. It’s going to change things, surely, but it doesn’t have to be bad change. It might result in separating the marketing and customer acquisition side of carrier business from the transmission and network operation side; there should be sustainable economics for the resulting businesses as long as they continue to operate efficiently and create value.

      Perhaps you mean everything in the world “shouldn’t” be replaced by ads, because it sure looks like everything “can be” and “may very well be.”

      In any case, it will be interesting to see how this develops.

      • Venkatesh

        I agree with your analysis and especially the part where you say “markets that Google enters get destroyed?”.

        regarding businesses not creating value. Take Mp3 for example. The delivery model for music was broken for sure and napster turned it on the head albeit illegally. What did apple do, it created a new delivery model in sync with current times. But it did not punish the musicians or music companies. Digital music sales is a new market segment in itself, created by Apple. Now they have done the same with appstore.

        Now compare that with Video. Video delivery model was broken. What did google do ? hide behind DMCA and wreck the legal streaming video market. There could have been successful video companies which streamed legal movies.But how would you compete with free and stolen content ? And what is the incentive for artist if all their music is stolen and available for free.

        All this free things exist till Google’s adsense program is cross subsidizing for it. Lets say Google revenue takes a plunge , what are the users left with ? Nothing !!

  19. The best feature of Google Voice is that you can use it as your main home phone service as long as you have high speed Internet. I am currently overseas and use it as my primary phone instead of having to pay for service through another VOIP such as Vonage. All you need is a free Gizmo5 account and a Linksys Pap2 or similar VOIP router. This how most people are already getting their phone service anyway my parents in the States have Comcast which worrks essentially the same way and is about $33 more expensive since GV is free. The only disadvantage is that to make an outbound call you need to dial through a computer. But if your computer is always on and if you have a smartphone or PDA you can dial from those also. As far as reliability GV is the only way we call our family and Ffiends in America and we have only had problems twice. Which is not bad for a free service. When people realize this killer feature of GV phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Vonage should be quaking in their pants. Google is giving a way a service they charge over $30 a month for. I don’t know why anyone would keep their traditional landline.

    • @PDXsays

      That’s the point… in Portland Oregon, I don’t know of anyone who *has* a traditional land line any more. That would be duplication of the service they carry in their pocket.

      Of course, we also have the highest unemployment rate in the nation – 12% and rising. So even those iPhones and other smart phones are something we really rely on as a community built on technology and creativity, but are looking for best prices on for monthly charges for services and features as well. It doesn’t hurt that we are a hot bed for apps developers for mobile.

      • John From Ohio

        I still have a land line. There are a few good reasons to have or (or keep one) and when bundled with DSL, it adds only about $20 to the bill. Some reasons:

        1. I am in a rural area and ONLY Verizon has a decent signal and it pops back and forth between 1 and 2 bars.
        2. 911 — I don’t care what they are saying these days, land lines are better for emergency situations.

        With Google Voice, now I can use my land line to make what would be long distance for free and not have to use my cell phone minutes.

        I can drop the Verizon monthly charge for international calls that discounts the rates to theft from grand theft.

        I can send text messages from my computer for free and reduce the charges. I use only a few per month and pay the 10 cents per, but now that can be eliminated for half or so.

        I have a lot of friends who buy long distance cards for U. S. calls! Not everyone is into the tech stuff! They do use a computer and Google, and they have land lines. They can get an account, throw away the clunky answering machine, and make their U. S. calls for free using an almost identical technique as for the cards.

        Our mileage varies!

    • garylyn

      Hi Mike,

      Very informative comment but i lost you on the VOIP router – overseas connection. Would you be so kind as to explain how that works?

      I’ve been hooked on Google Voice for near a month now, with Gizmo5 running as the desktop computer phone. It’s great. I’ve also noticed that my Google Chrome browser is open morning to night, with gMail, gReader, gVoice and gDocs always open. In fact, Chrome, Skype, Ashampoo, ZoneAlarm, and Gizmo5 are the only applications that run full time, all the time on my machine.

      There’s no doubt in my mind that once Wave is stable, i’ll live there. While Cisco is concerned that Google is challenging it’s Unified Communications & Collaboration Solutions, my experience is increasingly becoming one of “Unified Productivity” built around Google application and services. This is a challenge to Microsoft, whose desktop productivity environment totally dominates business.

      My first foray into application development was that of working on the first contact manager for Windows (pre 3.0). Okay, so i’m dating myself here. But one of the most difficult “productivity” challenges we had was that of unifying the sprawl of productivity resources so that they can be managed through a single interface. The “resources” included management and scheduling (time management) of all means of communication and contact. It also meant management of people and groups of people; the contacts. And finally, there were the producitivity applications themselves; the office suites and other editing tools that gathered information, analyzed it, re-purposed it and produced documents, graphics and charts that were then merged with other “resources”.

      Simply put, back then, productivity meant contacting more people in less time with higher quality exchanges. The quality of exchanges depended on information. A program of mass contact through merged mailings might initiate a contact schedule designed to run from mass mailing to qualifying phone calls and eMails, to the exchange of follow-up materials and documents, to face-to-face meetings and appointments.

      One of the interesting observations made by über productivity guru, the late great Peter Drucker, was that the introduction and wide spread use of the Personal Computer did not result in any kind of noteworthy productivity gains. In fact, it was just the opposite! That is until, the Internet landed on the desktop. Then productivity sky rocketed. The promise of the PC was fulfilled, not by the personal computer desktop client/server model, but by the Web. As a communication platform of universal access, exchange and collaboration, even the early Web 1.0 had an impact.

      For those with a contact-project management orientation, the promise of the Web is the unification of communications, collaborative computing applications and services, and the automated access and exchange of data. These could be said to be the three legs of Web productivity.

      What killed pre Web PC productivity i think was the overhead of manual input/output. A productivity management system was only as good as the information input and “quality” of the information input, and that was topped off by the automation of the contact part of the equation.

      When i first saw the Google Wave demo, i jumped out of my seat. The interface has incredible reach, sitting on a single Web platform for managing and working eMail, instant messaging, blog, wiki, multi-media management and document sharing. And now we have gVoice, which no doubt will bring that elusive aspect of audio and video communications into the Wave. With a single interface for communications and collaborative computing, and full platform of Web application and services behind it, they’ve got a real shot at unified productivity.

      That’s not to say Google will topple Microsoft any time soon. The monopolist has an iron grip on desktop business productivity. The near impossible barrier for Google is the ecosystem that has grown up around the Microsoft Office productivity environment. It’s also easier for Microsoft to “re-purpose” that environment with value added Web productivity, than it is for Google to replace it. As the exhaustive Massachusetts Pilot Study demonstrated, replacement is costly and disruptive to existing business processes and systems; even if the actual applications are free. This is about replacing an ecosystem that critical business processes are bound to. Which is more than the challenge presented by the more common view that the barrier is that of aging and increasingly brittle suites of applications, or the proprietary formats, protocols, and interfaces those applications and ecosystem API’s ride on.

      This is not to say that at some point in the future Google doesn’t similarly re-purpose the dominant productivity environment to deep connect into Google’s Open Web systems. But they better get rolling on that if they hope to succeed. The window of opportunity will gradually close as Microsoft transitions the monopoly base, the productivity environment, and, the bound business processes and systems to their Web centric unified productivity platform. I’m speaking about the Exchange/SharePoint/SQL Server/MOSS 2010 monster of a proprietary WebStack.

      One of the more interesting things OM mentions is that Android gVoice app is tightly meshed with the Android OS. I’m stuck on Chrome because i’m increasingly living inside Google applications and services – which run great on Chrome. No doubt Chrome OS and the evolution of HTML+ as both a rich application layer and, an über interactive document model, will enable Google applications and services to go way beyond their current feature sets. As the components of a Google grand strategy emerge, it comes as no small surprise that Google isn’t going to trust their future, and the future of the Open Web, to the good graces of Microsoft.

      Google has a lot on their plate. And so far the execution has been excellent. They continue to challenge and even take away the low hanging fruit that would otherwise be a piece of cake for Microsoft to leverage their monopoly into. Still though, i’m waiting for all the positioning and pieces to settle along battle lines still being drawn; and for the great battle of business productivity systems to begin.

      For the longest time i thought this race was one of Google replacing Microsoft on the desktop before Microsoft replaces Google on Web. With MOSS 2010 moving into public view, i now think it’s going to be about competing Web centered platforms of unified productivity services, where connecting device and desktop operating systems are optimized specifically for that vendors platform. Meaning, Microsoft has succeeded in protecting their desktop productivity monopoly, but now they are migrating the entire empire to the Web. And Google will do whatever it takes to defend their empire and the Open Web that business depends on. Even if it means moving into the operating systems business, and, challenging Microsoft in the arena of Web centered unified productivity.

      Ride that Wave,


    • Can somebody please explain how they manage to make this free ??? Lets take the following cenarios:

      1) someone calls my GV number (I assume caller pays that call…?). GV redirects to my cell phone – how is this redirect free, or who pays for this ?? Is this a new phone call which is joined with the 1st one ??

      2) someone calls my GV number (I assume caller pays that call…?). GV redirects to my fixed PSTN line. – how is this redirect free, or who pays for this ??

      3) someone calls my GV number (I assume caller pays that call…?). GV phone redirects to my number which is a Vonage Voip number. Ok, this one is free.

      4) I make a call using my GV number, to a mobile phone number – this call is entirely free for me but not for the receiving party ??

  20. Om wrote: “In this summer of a lot of hot air from Google – Google Wave and Google Chrome OS for example…”

    We are all familiar with the famous Om brand of cynicism, but this might be a stretch.

    Hot air is when I claim that I can beat Michael Phelps in a swimming race, although I have never given you any evidence that I even know swimming. When I have products like the Gmail and Android already released and used by thousands and thousands of people, when I give working demos of the Wave to standing ovation and hold developer workshops across the world, you don’t call it hot air.

    • LL

      — Waiting for Google Wave invites/more details. I think you should read the Google Groups around Wave. You can run demo from your laptop: let’s see it become more available to people.

      — Google Chrome OS: not showing up until 2010. Even then it is hard to predict when it is going to really show up.

      Actions speak louder than words, and yes – call me cynical (or a realist) if I see it as hot air.

  21. If it uses the PSTN, the user will still pay for minutes on his carrier network to use Google Voice. So how will it do call continuity if the connection is dropped? Google Voice may be free but talk time will still ride over the carrier network.

    • That is correct. This will be true until two things happen:

      1. The cell phone’s data connections become capable of supporting pure VoIP calls.

      2. Google enhances the Voice application to make pure VoIP calls, perhaps through the GTalk platform.


      • “1. The cell phone’s data connections become capable of supporting pure VoIP calls.

        2. Google enhances the Voice application to make pure VoIP calls, perhaps through the GTalk platform.”

        In both cases you are assuming that the consumer will have wifi / data connection. If s/he doesn’t, s/he is still going to have to use carrier’s network.

    • james hong

      I wrote a blog post once theorizing that google would do this.

      the part that is missing, and the reason you still have to pay carrier, is because wifi is not ubiquitous. Remember, around the same time google bought grandcentral, they were also bidding for spectrum, so they could make wifi free everywhere you went?

      if they had that layer, then they could basically build a free cell phone network.

      presumably, they will make it so google voice routes traffic over wifi and VOIP whenever possible now too. presuming you use your phone at home/office a lot, that would at least shave off minutes used with carrier.

    • Paul

      Right now cell phone companies are offering pretty hefty voice only packages. The price of voice minutes continues to go down thanks to a lot of competition. I think you can get unlimited voice for $60 a month from a company like T-mobile. The point of Google Voice is that it obviates the need for multiple phone numbers and replace them with a virtual phone number – hence their tagline, one phone number for life.

      So now you can switch mobile numbers as many times on you want and still not worry. You can bounce around from one service to another without having to bother telling any one of your friends your new number. I think the impact of this service becomes even more profound when Google Voice comes out for the java-based phones.

      • coldbrew

        Actually, unlimited voice on TMOB is $100/month, and your casual misstatement (off by 40%), given your assumed authority, is irresponsible (yes, I realize this is the comments section).

      • @coldbrew:

        Actually, I have unlimited voice on T-Mobile and it only costs me $49 a month for nationwide service. I also have the G1 unlimited data/texts for an additional $35. Basically $85 for unlimited everything.

        Please do research before claiming someone else’s statement is irresponsible.

      • coldbrew

        Eric: Yes, when one “bundles” data, I understand that a better price can be had for an individual service. However, one cannot get unlimited, voice-only at a price of $60/mo. When you combine services that changes the proposition entirely. Thanks for assuming I didn’t do any research, but you are simply wrong.

      • @ColdBrew In March it was fairly widely published that T-Mobile took a $50 unlimited voice plan nationwide (Not bundled. It was a retention plan for existing customers). Not hard to imagine that some version of this exists (unpublished).

      • Axess Denyd

        T-Mobile has unlimited voice for $50 for “preferred customers”–basically, people who have been with them for a while. It’s not available to new subscribers at that price.

      • Thanks for the assist guys, some people just don’t know how to do research. It was a plan that was offered to “loyal customers”. Regardless if it was for new/old users, it was still a plan they offered, which I currently have, no “bundling required”.

      • While this is all very inviting, I recall a very nasty monopoly that was broken up starting in 1968. That company was called AT&T. They put the screws to everybody. Most of the people interested in what Google can provide were not around then, so are unaware of the downside to a monopoly. There is another issue a much bigger one than what AT&T did, this one may be more daunting and nagetive.
        Its just not that they Google provide you with phone service,Google can prove you with all you need to be connected. if you have gmail, use google search, google apps, use anything that Google owns, you can bet that every aspect of YOU is known and all that data gets cross polinated across all data points including partners (3ed party as well). They will parse it and you are targeted with ads and who knows what else. The info can also be SOLD to so many other entities without your permission What are you willing to give up for Free?

      • @Courtney – appropriate that you bring up RBOCs in a discussion about Phone companies. Of the 7 original baby bells: Qwest has one, Verizon recombined two, and AT&T recombined four. Those are the companies that GV (somtimes) competes against.

        Any Google discussion brings up the privacy issue. I could be wrong, but I’ll believe that Google doesn’t associate/distribute any personally identifiable information. Their own ad revenue is so huge, I seriously doubt the incremental value of selling that kind of information would be worthwhile.

        You’re right – the potential for abuse exists – but hardcore privacy advocates have a lot of other companies to worry about (Acxiom?). And the most militant privacy advocates probably shouldn’t have an online life at all.

    • Yuvamani

      Good point.

      The thing is that this can cut into services like international dialing. This saves you some moolah. There were apps (I remember one for windows mobile) which did a similiar thing. When you wanted to call international, the app would call the calling card company (which you could configure) and then dial your number.

      There is the long term prospect of VoIP too. Though that kind of VoIP can be banned by the carriers and some protectionist governments (India for example bans it)