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

Updates to our Google Voice apps

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 364 posts

Re: Updates to our Google Voice apps

#301

Post by [deleted] »

wutbrodo wrote: post #271
blakesterz wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Frankly, I can't understand how Google is so chaotic. I'd love an open and honest answer from someone up high in the org chart at Google on that. Better yet, just an acknowledgement of it and how they're going to stop doing this in the future. If they were a startup with 200 employees under the age of 30 I'd understand it, but they're obviously waaaaay beyond that stage.

People high up are aware of it; nobody seems competent enough (at management) to do anything about it.

[deleted]

Re: Updates to our Google Voice apps

#302

Post by mjevans »

ramses0 wrote: post #276
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This: "they release two products that should be one instead (Android & ChromeOS)"... I've been thinking the same exact thing. Google basically split the ecosystem in half...devs have to unnecessary build seperate apps for each (unless they are using a cross platform engine).

Not really... chromeos is the bare minimum linux environment to run a chrome browser on laptop hardware. Android is some frankenstein of java IDE to develop phone software. They might-should-be the same, but they're fundamentally very different roots.

Back at the time phones hadn't scaled up enough. Remember how horrid early android (and iphones) were? I actually skipped the first generation entirely (and only got my first smart phone because it would be better than my existing phone and have GPS navigation as it's killer app).

Re: Updates to our Google Voice apps

#303

Post by tlow »

You know what this is? This is an attempt to cover their asses for forcing G+ that nobody wanted. I refused to ever signup for Google Plus and was excluded from Hangouts for a longtime and thus even though hangouts supported Google Voice MMS sending and receiving, that could only be done in hangouts which could only be accessed via a G+ account. That restriction was lifted and now they're bringing features they were witholding for G+ signups to GVoice b/c nobody likes G+.

Edit update: This is similar to forcing sign in on maps (via dark ux) and search (for cross device attribution, ie squeezing more $ out of you, not providing a better service).

Re: Updates to our Google Voice apps

#304

Post by saurik »

Infernal wrote: post #280
saurik wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hell, at this point I would settle for some closure on "what the hell did you mean by 'more wood behind fewer arrows' in 2011 when you began the process of mass project shutdown?!... that's not really how arrows work :/".

More wood = bigger bow. Shoot fewer arrows harder, i.e. more resources behind fewer projects, i.e. quality over quantity.

THANK YOU! All of the other explanations I'd come across have thought they meant to shoot fewer, but heavier, arrows :/.

Re: Updates to our Google Voice apps

#305

Post by kobayashi »

stock_toaster wrote: post #268
fooey wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opening iMessage to other platforms would cannibalize iOS sales. I hear soo many people say they'd try Android, but they can't lose iMessage

Apple wanted to open it up, supposedly, but I read somewhere that they were apparently blocked by lawsuits with VirnetX (an apparent NPE/patent-troll), ongoing since 2010.

If you can find the source, I'd love to read it.

Re: Updates to our Google Voice apps

#306

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jfoster wrote: post #11
mynameisvlad wrote: post #2

So, is this the death of Hangouts and rebirth of Google Voice then? They had previously been transitioning the UX off of GV and onto Hangouts.

It's absurd that consumers are left guessing which of Google's services are around for the long-haul and which are doomed. There was a time when success was the default outcome for a new Google product/service. Now it's the opposite, and the crazy thing is that Google did it to themselves.

Was that a move from adoption to profit as the metric for success. Now they 'have' to maximise profit and search for the maximal mode of doing so, previously they were content to create useful apps?

Re: Updates to our Google Voice apps

#307

Post by Mindless2112 »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #21

[edit] I guess it's not updated in the play store yet?

When Google does these rollouts, you can usually find the new APK on APKMirror [1]. (If you sideload the APK and it ask you if you want to upgrade the app then you can be sure that the signature matches the one used to sign the previous version.)

[1] http://www.apkmirror.com/apk/google-inc/google-voice/google-...

Re: Updates to our Google Voice apps

#308

Post by ReverseCold »

sangnoir wrote: post #159
djsumdog wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never had an eyePhone and switch to Android from Palm's WebOS. But for years I've always used 3rd party ROMS (Cyanogen mostly). Google has a vested interest in not fixing Android's brokenness. They make a lot of money off phones that needs to be replaced every 2 years. With their strict control over OHA, they can easily mandate PC style platform standards to reduce e-waste, fight planned obsolescence and offer r…

> They make a lot of money off phones that needs to be replaced every 2 years. Someone is vested in making money every 2 years alright, but it's not Google - it's Qualcomm. > With their strict control over OHA, they can easily mandate PC style platform standards to reduce e-waste, fight planned obsolescence and offer real security updates Unfortunately due to Linux's intentional lack of a stable driver ABI, the abili…

Qualcomm owns CDMA right? I think they require using their SoC if you're in the US on Verizon or Sprint and are on Android

Re: Updates to our Google Voice apps

#309

Post by thewhitetulip »

yborg wrote: post #287
saurik wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hell, at this point I would settle for some closure on "what the hell did you mean by 'more wood behind fewer arrows' in 2011 when you began the process of mass project shutdown?!... that's not really how arrows work :/".

The real problem seems to be inability to aim. Google fired a ballista at Facebook with G+ and missed completely.

I read an essay on HN few weeks ago which said that the problem with G+ was that the higher mgmt at Google thought FB is famous because of a nicely designed product (rather than network effect), so they released a good product G+, it is somewhat a good product but it missed the train. Plus it has circles, it isn't intuitive.

Re: Updates to our Google Voice apps

#310

Post by prodigal_erik »

beambot wrote: post #213
philip1209 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber Eats thinks that my former Voice number (now Fi number) is not a real cell number, so it does not let me order. After repeated support tickets, they still assert that it's a virtual number and will not let me order.

Voice & Fi numbers are considered "call forwarders." Call forwarders are not allowed (legally?) to forward numbers to other call forwarders. Hence the issues between Voice & Fi. This might be the same issue with Uber Eats.

Makes me wonder whether they launched Fi to get their pool of phone numbers un-blacklisted because now some people have only that number and no others.
Post reply on HN