Google Voice

[David]

Pretty darn cool:

 

http://www.google.com/googlevoice/about.html

 

Any of you using it yet?

[DavidEBSmith]

I've been using it since it was GrandCentral. Yes, it is pretty cool. The best features for me are:

 

- Phone routing - my wife can call one number and it rings at work, at home and my cell phone. People from work can call the same number and it rings my work number or my cell number but not my home number.

 

- Voice mail transcriptions - if somebody calls and leaves a voice message while I'm in a meeting, I get a text message with a machine transcription of the voice message. They're sometimes comically inept, but you get the gist of the message and whether it's an emergency or a reminder to pick up dog food on the way home. Plus, I can play the voice message from any computer and download it as an MP3 file.

[David]

Phone routing - my wife can call one number and it rings at work, at home and my cell phone. People from work can call the same number and it rings my work number or my cell number but not my home number.

 

I haven't set that part up. How does it distinguish between who is calling so that it routes it correctly? I assume caller-id, but do you have to build a filter manually?

[ghaverkamp]

I'm not using it, because I haven't received an invite.

 

I am using one of the commercial services, RingCentral, however, which does everything Google Voice does but for the transcription (which I don't need) and the SMS integration, which would be nice (but which is still broken enough to be of questionable value in Google Voice.) The beauty of RingCentral is that you can bring an existing number in, but more importantly to me, since I'm using it as my business number, I'm actually paying, so there's actually someone listening if I call and have a problem.

 

Which isn't to say I won't use Google Voice as soon as I can get a phone number from them. I'm just not overly wowed, given the reasonably priced commercial alternatives.

 

As for things like call routing, RingCentral has a number of options, and I assume Google Voice is basically the same. Depending on the number called or extension selected from the auto-attendant or caller id (individual numbers or groupings), it routes numbers to the various lines. You can also pick up via VOIP on your computer or send directly to voicemail, etc.

 

Of course, I set it all up as a business line, and since I haven't been terribly proactive in my business development, it hasn't been used anywhere near enough.

[sgendler]

I already have one number - my mobile. Everyone calls that, and I always get it. No one who knows me leaves me voicemail. They know to send an SMS. Therefore, if it is in my voicemail, it is, by definition, unimportant. google voice seems at least a little interesting, but I don't need to be giving google any more of my data to mine.

[Paul_Burkett]

My wife said that there was a program on TV about this Google feature and the down side of it is Google keeps record of your phone incoming and outgoing numbers. Whethre that is important or not is up to the subscriber.

[Lets_Play_Two]

My wife said that there was a program on TV about this Google feature and the down side of it is Google keeps record of your phone incoming and outgoing numbers. Whethre that is important or not is up to the subscriber.

 

Doesn't every phone service provider do this?

[ghaverkamp]

My wife said that there was a program on TV about this Google feature and the down side of it is Google keeps record of your phone incoming and outgoing numbers. Whethre that is important or not is up to the subscriber.

 

Doesn't every phone service provider do this?

 

Of course they do. Heck, AT&T even tracks every data download I perform over 3G or EDGE.

 

People seem to believe that Google is the first collecting all of this data, or even that they're the first competent collectors of such data. Not even close.

[sgendler]

Google are surely the most competent at mining that data, however. Well, except perhaps for 3-letter govt agencies and the credit bureaus.

 

I trust AT&T with that data mostly because I trust in their general incompetence at doing anything with it.

 

All humour aside, though, my issue is with google's prevalence. They have access to so much of my data that it makes me nervous. Google have a much clearer picture of my browsing habits than AT&T ever will since google have ads and analytics pixels on just about every site I visit no matter where I am surfing from and they see every one of my internet searches. They can usually identify me because I do have google mail accounts, so I surely carry an identifying cookie that I don't blow away all that frequently. Add in contextual analysis of emails I receive on gmail and phone records, and they cross a line that I prefer not to cross. They'd have a clear picture of my web, email, and phone habits. I prefer to spread that info around, so my primary email isn't google and my phone won't ever be, either, if I can help it.

[ghaverkamp]

Google are surely the most competent at mining that data, however. Well, except perhaps for 3-letter govt agencies and the credit bureaus.

 

There's little evidence that Google's even close. The only property Google owns that gives me any concern is DoubleClick. Beyond that, and unlike others, Google's made explicit promises regarding retention and use of various types of data, which is a far cry different from others.

 

Those who have proven themselves good at mining data are companies like ChoicePoint, Acxiom, InfoUSA, and their ilk, as well as the even more hidden companies like Information Resources. What makes these companies far worse than Google is that they'll just run out and buy the data from AT&T personally if they want it. These guys put the information held by the credit bureaus to shame.

 

All humour aside, though, my issue is with google's prevalence. They have access to so much of my data that it makes me nervous. Google have a much clearer picture of my browsing habits than AT&T ever will since google have ads and analytics pixels on just about every site I visit no matter where I am surfing from and they see every one of my internet searches.

 

All of which is easily defeated if you're really that concerned.

 

I'm not saying that Google doesn't have access to a lot of information. What I am saying is that the information that Google has pales in comparison to what many other companies have, online and off. Google's hardly worth worrying about compared to the amount of information flowing to and from everyone else you're encountering. The big difference is that people have heard of Google, whereas the much more skilled miners work in the dark.

[sgendler]

Google are surely the most competent at mining that data, however. Well, except perhaps for 3-letter govt agencies and the credit bureaus.

 

There's little evidence that Google's even close. The only property Google owns that gives me any concern is DoubleClick. Beyond that, and unlike others, Google's made explicit promises regarding retention and use of various types of data, which is a far cry different from others.

 

That's true now, but their promises aren't legally binding. When they decide that they are no longer going to uphold those promises, all bets are off. And they have the processing, storage, network, and power (electrical) to do things with their data that others don't. You're right that I haven't heard of some of those companies, but I know that they can't match google's capabilities should google decide to be evil. More importantly, there's not much I can do about them, while I can put up hurdles for google.

[sgendler]

Incidentally, why does doubleclick scare you where google doesn't? having worked at a number of ad networks over the years, it is only the addition of google's technical competence that would make me nervous about the things doubleclick does. Sure, they were technically capable of seeing a lot of your traffic (though less than google does with analytics pixels and their text ads everywhere, I bet), but their technical competence was never nearly as high as the privacy advocates made it out to be. Their models were fairly simplistic and their profile storage is limited by the IAB. All bets are off with access to google's much higher degree of technical competence and computing resources, though the IAB limits on storing user profiles keeps some of that in check. but if any ad network could get away with simply telling the IAB (and everyone else) to get stuffed, it is google.

[ghaverkamp]

That's true now, but their promises aren't legally binding. When they decide that they are no longer going to uphold those promises, all bets are off.

 

I don't know why you think that's the case.

 

If they decide to change their terms, and one continues to use their services after the terms have changed and there has been sufficient notice. However, if one uses their services in reliance on promises or actions, that should certainly be legally binding.

 

And they have the processing, storage, network, and power (electrical) to do things with their data that others don't. You're right that I haven't heard of some of those companies, but I know that they can't match google's capabilities should google decide to be evil.

 

I think you're underestimating companies who sole businesses have been comprised of collecting, collating, and selling personal information for longer than we've even been talking about Internet search.

 

Again, you can decide not to give Google anything you want. My position is just that Google's near the bottom of the list of my concerns.

[ghaverkamp]

Incidentally, why does doubleclick scare you where google doesn't? having worked at a number of ad networks over the years, it is only the addition of google's technical competence that would make me nervous about the things doubleclick does. Sure, they were technically capable of seeing a lot of your traffic (though less than google does with analytics pixels and their text ads everywhere, I bet), but their technical competence was never nearly as high as the privacy advocates made it out to be.

 

Largely, it's because I don't believe the Analytics has a wider footprint than DoubleClick's network.

[smiller]

Just got an invite and yes, pretty cool. I like the feature that enables you to transfer in-progress calls from one phone to another.

 

Is there any way to use wildcards when specifying a number range so as to allow special treatment for a range of numbers vs. a specific number?

[Selden]

I've been on their waiting list for months. I need to print up new business cards, and I'm thinking about getting a Road ID bracelet, and I'd like to use a GV number for both. Patience.

[bakerzdosen]

I'm just grateful for the reminder to "upgrade" my grandcentral account.

[ghaverkamp]

Finally got an invite.

 

So far, the only thing I've found all that interesting was the utility to search for a number. If I wanted people to think my law practice was in Louisiana, I could've had BIT-WISE.

 

Other than that, it seems like you get what you pay for. The functionality in my $10/mo RingCentral account far eclipses what Google's offering. (Not that I really need all of the advanced call handling stuff RingCentral has, anyway. No one ever calls me on my business line. But it's there if they ever do.)

[smiller]

Other than that, it seems like you get what you pay for. The functionality in my $10/mo RingCentral account far eclipses what Google's offering. (Not that I really need all of the advanced call handling stuff RingCentral has, anyway. No one ever calls me on my business line. But it's there if they ever do.)

Well I think that's it. Ring Central's capabilities are more sophisticated and more appropriate for a business, but as a private user I'm not sure how I'd ever really use any of the advanced feature set. And it's $9.95 with a yearly commitment, and even then covers only the first 100 minutes per month. A free and unlimited service that does 90% (or more likely 100%) of what most private individuals need seems like a much better choice for many.