Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Project Fi by Google

fi.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 608 posts

Re: Project Fi by Google

#141

Post by repsilat »

yellowapple wrote: post #74
higherpurpose wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. It's one thing to offer "unlimited data" for a fixed price - which is about ideal for a consumer, but that doesn't exist anymore. What you get is a fixed amount of data for a fixed price. But the provider has an incentive to make you use as little as possible, to increase its profits. But if instead you get the data returned to you, or you pay a reasonable amount by the MB, then the provider has…

> It's one thing to offer "unlimited data" for a fixed price - which is about ideal for a consumer, but that doesn't exist anymore. Yes it does; both Sprint and T-Mobile offer it (alongside their respective non-unlimited plans). The fact that Google Fi doesn't despite using those two carriers as its "partners" is incredibly disappointing.

If bandwidth is scarce there's always an incentive to go towards "pay for what you use" schemes, though.

It's like an insurance "death spiral"[1] -- if one provider provides fixed-cost internet (or wide "bands"), the customers who use the least data will subsidise those who use the most. If another provider offers them internet at the true marginal rate, they'll move there. After they've moved on, the fixed-cost internet provider has to increase its rates, rinse and repeat.

Of course, customers may prefer to be insulated in the months they use more data than usual, and moving between providers may not be free, or they may just not care at all...

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_spiral_(insurance)

Re: Project Fi by Google

#142

Post by yebyen »

rev_bird wrote: post #55
higherpurpose wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why this becomes an issue with every single service Google launches . It's pretty clear Google's strategy is not to launch Apps support for any product that is either beta or immediately post-beta, and it wants to wait a bit until things get stable enough to use for enterprise.

That's actually a much more logical explanation than I've heard before, but it seems to be based on a potential misunderstanding of who is using the service -- maybe it is mostly giant companies, but I bet there are a lot of tinkerers who just like having the custom email domain.

On that thread, for us early adopters who got permanently free Google domains for up to 50 users before Google Apps for Work was ever a thing, declined to upgrade, and kept the free service...

I have no point really, other than to be the one saying Thanks Google in a gripe thread. I have been bitten by this before, but now that the sting has eased I don't miss Google Apps on my personal vanity domain account even a little bit. I have a real gmail /g+ account that I can use to sign up for betas and giveaways like this, for mailing lists I'd rather keep separate from more personal comms, and for any other pseudonymous communication, etc. that saves me from a lot of hassle, and my employer is a paid subscriber to Apps for Work, so I even am really aware of all what I'm missing.

tl;dr: thanks for the free e-mail service, Google! You're a real bro

Re: Project Fi by Google

#143

Post by fennecfoxen »

eli wrote: post #113
luu wrote: post #46

Who handles support for this? Is it Google, or one of the carriers that Google's using? Who do you talk to if the handoff between carriers doesn't quite work? I've skimmed the FAQ and I didn't see that listed in there. For context, I use Google Voice, and while it's really nice in a lot of ways, it has some unfortunate bugs that have persisted for years that it seems impossible to get support for. I no longer uncondi…

The typical MVNO model would be for Google to handle all the support. I agree that end-user support does not seem to be one of Google's strengths.

Maybe that's okay -- end-user support isn't exactly one of the cellular industry's strengths either :P

Re: Project Fi by Google

#144

Post by icebraining »

inglor wrote: post #22
aerovistae wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won't be a market leader in everything. What do they lead aside from search, ads, and mobile OS? The really funny bit is that near the end of Steve Jobs's life (per the biography), Larry Page asked him for advice and of course he said "focus on doing a few things really well, cut out everything else." Seems Larry decided he knew better.

> What do they lead aside from search, ads, and mobile OS? Browser, email, self-driving cars. Lots of other stuff too...

Leading in self-driving cars is debatable. They surely have the most visibility, but some car manufacturers and academic institutions like VisLab also have some impressive prototypes, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNcyuApIlFw (the autonomous car is the one in front)

Re: Project Fi by Google

#145

Post by pyrocat »

pluma wrote: post #108
gabemart wrote: post #61

> Pay one rate for data around the world > > In 120+ countries, data usage costs the same $10 per GB > as it does in the US (data speed is limited to 256kbps/3G). > Check email, get directions, and keep in touch with friends > and family when on your trip. Also, call around the world > for 20c per minute and send unlimited international texts. This sounds incredible. Roaming cellular transmission costs are enormous.…

Is $10/GB and $0.2/min normal within the US? I'm not familiar with American (non-roaming) pricing. For comparison: In Germany I have an LTE data plan for my tablet where I pay €24.99 for 7.5GB (~$3.57/GB), the lowest plan being €6.99 for 1GB (~$7.50/GB). Unlimited calls in Germany including 1GB data would cost me €19.99/month (~$21.48) at the same provider and unlimited text in Germany would be an additional €4.99/mo…

Not sure about the per minute pricing, but the data cost is low.

Re: Project Fi by Google

#146

Post by foobarqux »

tomhschmidt wrote: post #93
MBlume wrote: post #40

"We refund the data you don't use" is basically a way of saying "you pay by the megabyte for the data you do use" -- which is actually really great, I've been frustrated that everyone's settled on "all-you-can-eat" data as the standard, it doesn't align incentives well at all. And they really are refunding it: if you use 1.2GB per month, it doesn't matter whether you sign up for 2, 5, or 10GB, your bill comes out exa…

This plan actually makes no sense. Overage charges are the same rate ($10 / GB), so why am I buying a "plan" at all? Why don't they just charge $10 * x gigs / month instead of all this buying / refunding business?

They invest the float.

edit: Removed reference to cash conversion cycle because it doesn't really have anything to do with that.

Re: Project Fi by Google

#148

Post by saidajigumi »

MBlume wrote: post #67
rhino369 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just wish it had peak/non-peak pricing. Even something as basic as free nights.

Or better yet, some sort of dynamic pricing when, say, you're on a crowded subway platform. You'd really want solid software integration for that, though, so the user isn't unpleasantly surprised by it.

I have a lot of problems with surge pricing in general, not the least of which (in this example) is that it creates two classes of 'net users: those with enough disposable income to probably not care about surge pricing ever and those for whom it's a burden. Yes, that's a reflection on larger societal issues, but it's still there.

Worse, surge pricing is often a distraction for nearly everyone. IMO, it's not ethical to implement surge pricing without allowing a user some mechanism to opt-out of it and to understand why they aren't getting bandwidth at that time. But having put that stake in the ground, the UX now requires that the user waste mental decision energy on ... business bullshit[1].

Last not far from least, it aligns the incentives of carriers against providing enough coverage to handle capacity. We're learning how to handle higher density wireless scenarios (cf. articles on stadium and other heavy-use event network systems). Would we rather incentivize trickle-down of these systems into high-traffic public areas (e.g. commuter zones), or just further line the pockets of a few near-monopolist carriers at our own expense?

[1] This relates to why users rightly don't like metered billing -- it creates decision pressure. A payment structure that alleviates use of decision energy is a value add.

Re: Project Fi by Google

#149

Post by anilshanbhag »

This does look promising but it is in no way cheaper than existing options. I am currently using a family plan from AT&T to get 1GB (10GB shared among 10 to be precise) + unlimited calls+text for $27.17 per month.

Re: Project Fi by Google

#150

Post by nissimk »

ikeboy wrote: post #129
MBlume wrote: post #40

"We refund the data you don't use" is basically a way of saying "you pay by the megabyte for the data you do use" -- which is actually really great, I've been frustrated that everyone's settled on "all-you-can-eat" data as the standard, it doesn't align incentives well at all. And they really are refunding it: if you use 1.2GB per month, it doesn't matter whether you sign up for 2, 5, or 10GB, your bill comes out exa…

http://www.straighttalk.com/wps/portal/home/shop/serviceplan... has a 3GB plan for a year at $41.25 per month. Google's pricing for the same amount is $50 per month. So the question is whether all the new features (wifi calling, international roaming, pay-for-usage) justify the extra $9, plus the cost of a new phone for those without a Nexus 6. (Wifi calling should probably be left out of that list, since it's most l…

It's not just international roaming. StraightTalk does not support international texting. There is no way to text canadian phones from StraightTalk US. If you want International calling you can get that, but it costs more.
Post reply on HN