Google Voice Daily

Apple has taken a lot of heat for its decision to reject the Google Voice dialer app from Google, as well as for retroactively removing three existing Google Voice apps, two weeks ago. The reper- cussions continue to rever- berate and grow, from customer anger to developer disgust to regulatory action.

Most of the discussion, though, has missed the key point of the whole series of events – the one aspect of the whole brouhaha that was, at least in a broad, moral sense, a crime. This wasn’t the rejection of Google’s Google Voice app. Google’s people are big boys, and can look after themselves – as shown by David Pogue’s comment that they would develop a version of their mobile Web site for Google Voice to replace the rejected dialer.

No, the crime was the cold-blooded execution of the three existing Google Voice apps: Sean Kovacs’ GV Mobile, Riverturn’s Voice Central and gvDialer from MobileMax. These apps had already been approved and were for sale on the App Store. They had press reviews, revenues, and real, live customers – who are also customers of Apple and AT&T.

The key point is that nothing material changed between the approval of each of these apps and their being rejected. The developers didn’t all do something wrong; nothing relevant in the marketplace changed between the approval and the removal. They were crushed only because they were in the way – which is no reason at all.

Ironically, the crime against these developers is the one part of the whole mess that’s simple, clear, and unarguable; yet it’s also the one part that’s easily reversed.

The apps involved each have an interesting history. GV Mobile had quickly become the leader on the iPhone due to its friendly and useful blend of distinctive features and protective camouflage, looking just like similar iPhone functions. (Yes, that’s what Apple complained about, but it was true when the app was approved too.) The app’s developer was said to have gotten a call from Phil Schiller himself apologizing for the delay in his initial approval. Voice Central’s history went back to Grand Central days, so they had had two major approvals. gvDialer is following an interesting multi-platform strategy that may yet prove a winner; no other platform is stopping them from selling their app.

And Apple stepped on all three. In fact, it wiped them out as App Store apps. GV Mobile is trying to continue in the Cydia store for use by pwned iPhones and iPods, while gvDialer continues its multi-platform strategy, minus the biggest smartphone platform around.

Who gets the blame for this? There’s only one person at Apple who can overrule Phil Schiller, and that’s whose hand the smoking gun is in.

Is AT&T at fault? On the Google dialer app, perhaps. But not on the three existing apps. Apple had a strong response to any serpentine whisperings in their corporate ear on this front. All Apple had to say was:  ”Sorry, we already gave approval, a while ago to boot. We don’t treat our developers like that – and if we were to do so in this case, the outcry, not to mention any regulatory response, would be bad for both you and us. So, no.”

The Google dialer app decision can be argued endlessly, but there’s a pretty good case for Apple having the right to deny approval for it. Retroactively rescinding approval given to smaller players, who had already garnered customers, is much harder to defend. If there’s anything in all this that qualifies as “evil”, this is it. (And if there’s a bone in all this that the FTC can gnaw for years if it wants to, this is that as well.)

The surprising thing to realize is that this is one gun that can be un-fired quite simply. I’ll even write the statement for Apple:

“In the process of reviewing Google’s application for a Google Voice dialer app, we also reviewed three existing Google Voice apps. In the process of denying Google’s application, we decided to remove the existing apps as well.

This latter decision was a mistake. We apologize to the developers involved and to our joint customers who have been inconvenienced by this action.

We are working with the developers to restore their apps to the App Store and are discussing with them compensation for their lost sales during this period.”

Apple can release this statement tomorrow. It would make the developers, their existing customers, and their potential customers – all customers of Apple and AT&T as well – whole.

Until Apple takes this step, all these other issues will continue to circle around both Apple and AT&T. If Apple restores these three apps, all their related problems will begin to improve from that moment forward.

Here is a good brief analysis of Google Voice’s likely impact on the existing telecomms industry. It describes how a raft of companies that had recently begun to get traction selling “point of presence” applications are threatened.

Key quote:

“How will companies formerly selling point of presence applications survive, when you can get 95% of the features they offer, for 100% less cost?”

The article points out that some burden shifts to users:

“…while end-users will have to suffer minor learning curves and possible feature shortages in the early versions, we all can see with our own eyes that Google has created a great SaaS platform…”

Then points to some of the people who’d better watch out:

“While other firms like Vonnage, Skype and a host of others have tip-toed into that space, none had the market clout, devoted developer base, and the goodwill of so much open architecture to drive market penetration at such a rocket-like rate which Google can muster.
     I would not want to be an application software developer in the way of this speeding train… so you better find a way to get on it before it runs you over!”

We’re all curious to see if market penetration really goes at a rocket-like rate!

By comparison, it took Gmail four years to get to 50 million users – and it’s now rocketed upward to 100 million in just the last year.  Google Voice requires more of a change in people’s habits than Gmail does, but then, the benefits - most eye-catching, the huge savings on international calls, especially compared to calls made directly from a mobile - are more compelling too.

My own guess is that the numbers will be lower – I see it as unlikely that Google Voice will have more than 100 million users in five years – but still impressive. Adding a million users a year for five years, with disproportionate impact among US smartphone users (including perhaps the majority of US journalists, bloggers and other trend-setters), would be enough for Google Voice to be off to a very good start indeed.

Janet Shamlian says "I'm ready to turn three phones into one" to Craig Walker

Even in this age when media attention is fragmented – and the old Big 3 networks and newspapers are suffering – there are still a few iconic spots where any company would love to see their product appear. Google Voice has already hit a home run with David Pogue of the New York Times and lit up the blogosphere. Today it’s received favorable notices on the iconic Today show.

In the three-minute segment, Matt Lauer introduces Google Voice as “a single way that you can be reached”. Reporter Janet Shamlian describes Google Voice as a “huge convenience.”

She describes her two months of experience using Google Voice to juggle her busy schedule as an NBC News reporter and the mother of five children. Only a few of Google Voice’s top features get mentioned – cheap calls, custom voicemail message and spam filtering are shown. Google Voice is compared favorably to Google Search.

Grand Central founder Craig Walker gets a precious 10 seconds on-camera with the reporter to describe Google Voice  as putting people back in control. The overall impression is that Google Voice simplifies her life and helps her with work and, perhaps more importantly, with family.

The segment raises privacy concerns about having all your voice messages go through one central service, but in the end Janet gives Google Voice a big thumbs up.

Our take: Google Voice was probably already bound to be a hit with the early adopters out there – and, eventually, with “the rest of us” as well. Favorable reports like on Today may help create a bit of a feeding frenzy when the service finally launches, with people who usually wait for a technology to prove itself rushing in to be among the first to get Google Voice.

I hate voice mail. Whenever I have to check voice messages, I feel like I’m entering a kind of Twilight Zone, a different dimension of frustration where I lose all control of time.

It gets to where I get annoyed with people who leave me voice mail. I’m far from the only person who feels this way – and far from the only person who has left an announcement on my phone with one form or another of, “Please send me e-mail”.

When I calm down enough to think about it, the reasons are clear. Voice mail is the worst of two worlds – the e-mail world and the phone call world. In the e-mail world, you don’t get to interact immediately with the other person; you and they can’t interrupt with a question, ask for details or pick up subtle vocal shadings. And in the phone call world, the other person can go on and on – and, I guess, I can too. The voice mail world is missing interaction, like the e-mail world, and is far worse in the tendency of some people (you know who you are) to go on and on – like the phone call world, only worse. Voice mail is also a hassle to check, much harder than e-mail or (when the other person is available when you need them) a phone call.

The New York Times has now noted these frustrations, analyzed them – and cited Google Voice as an answer. In an article titled You’ve Got Voice Mail, but Do You Care?, Jill Colvin hits several nails right on the head. Via interviews, she even puts some numbers on the inefficiency of voice mail:

 >According to her calculation, it takes 7 to 10 steps to check a voice mail message versus zero to 3 for an e-mail.

>Mr. Siminoff estimates that textual voice messaging is about 15 to 20 times faster than traditional voice mail.

The article then mentions Google Voice as a solution:

>Most important for the voice-mail-averse, Google Voice will also transcribe voice mails at no cost.

Consumers can be expected to go for Google Voice instinctively, inherently aware of these frustrations. Businesses, with a much greater need to cost-justify their decisions and to find a way to weigh convenience against, for instance, security concerns, can reprise the calculations above for themselves and their own specific situations.

Google Voice was announced to the world on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 via the official Google blog. At the same time came a rush of press stories, no doubt helped along by Google.  There was even a story on the business aspects of Google Voice from the New York Times.

Highlights:

• The Times sees Google Voice as a threat to Skype
• Times tech star David Pogue said it “will revolutionize telephones“
• TechCrunch calls Google Voice “absolutely compelling“
• Wired sees Google Voice stealing ”some of Skype’s 400 million customers”

What are the worries? Google Voice raises privacy issues, as PC World – in not just one, but two detailed screeds – notes. The second is that it won’t catch on in the way Google seems to hope.

Google has had two huge hits in its short life. The first is Web search – I know, I was at AltaVista when they crushed us – and the second is search-related advertising. 

Google Voice could be the third; Google seems to want it to reach that level. By comparison, Microsoft, the big winner in the PC revolution, has only ever had three huge hits: DOS, Windows and Office.

But to win, Google Voice needs to adapt to very different phone call economics in most other countries. And it needs luck.

After all, success at the highest level requires Google to become the world’s #1 telephony provider. That door happens to be open – but it will still be an amazing accomplishment if Google can walk through it.