Apple vs Google, in a cold war sorta way?
Google Voice is poised to positively gut the antiquated, draconian telecommunications market. This should put the fear of Almighty Google in the hearts of everyone from AT&T to Skype. Things are about to change, and by change I mean effectively from black to white.
Currently, GV is in limited release, just like Gmail was a few years ago. For now you can only get US prefixes, and only from inside the US, but you can bet they will expand as fast as they can. To sum up the revolution: you can have one central number and message service to manage all your phones. And that group can be subdivided, so if Mom calls during work hours she can be automatically routed to messaging. Your work phone doesn’t even ring. You get a text message and a transcript of her message in your email.
Imagine only having to give out one number ever again, and choosing which of your phones will ring when they call, or none at all. Mark my words– telemarketing’s days are numbered.
Right now I can call Canada for a penny a minute. That’s certainly almost all profit for Google, and deservedly so, as far as I’m concerned. Long distance charges from most carriers are ridiculous. And I text for free. International texting, right now, for free.
Of course they have a shiny iPhone app, but Apple had GV Mobile pulled almost immediately, citing overlapping functionality. Never mind the numerous apps that already do that, like Textfree, Skype, fring, and iCall. This isn’t the first time Apple actions have seemed arbitrary, or at least moody. It seems more likely to me that Apple is quite suddenly aware of the ramifications of what Google is proposing. One ring to rule them all, and all of them for free (or nearly so).
There are other apps out there that do similar things, but none with the ubiquity of the Google name, or the globally networked processing power. And none with the feature package.
So Apple is probably acting in their own best interest, and nothing arbitrary about it at all. And they are probably just the first in the telecommunications game to have opportunity to act directly against the inevitable march of the mighty Gooj. Resistance is useless, of course. Google Voice is available as a mobile web app: https://www.google.com/voice/m – easily reachable from an iPhone or any other mobile. A web link isn’t as sleek as an on-board app, but it’ll do for now. Calling out using the Google Voice number is a bit of a nuisance, requiring a callback (instantaneous though it may be) but it’ll do for now. Considering how far this goes in levelling the playing field between consumer and corporation, it’ll do for now.
If you must have the GV Mobile app, and you are willing to jailbreak your iPhone, you can get it via Cydia right here. That’s right, the developers were pissed off enough at Apple for ganking the app that they set it loose in the wild.
You have been waiting for something, anything, that meant not having to choose the lesser among a swarm of evils, and somehow you always knew it would be Google. I’m not deliriously happy that Apple is not showing their best colours here, but then, it’s never been their mantra “don’t be evil.”
Apple vs Google, in a cold war sorta way? Read More »
coded into a corner
I am stuck.
I’m working with a third party template in Dreamweaver. It previews just fine in Firefox. Looks great. And this is the second template I have used from the same designer (the first one worked without incident). This one, once uploaded, shows the text only. No graphics. It’s an html template with an accompanying default.css stylesheet. The links are all relative, so the path images/whatever.jpg persists. I compared the calls and the stylesheet itself to the other (succesful) template and as far as I can tell, everything matches for syntax.
It appears that the html file can’t see the css file. But as far as I can tell, it’s a straightforward call and the syntax is fine.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd”>
<html xmlns=”http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml”>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=”content-type” content=”text/html; charset=utf-8″ />
<title>website name (WP for some reason won’t display this close title, but it’s there)
<meta name=”keywords” content=”” />
<meta name=”description” content=”” />
<link href=”default.css” rel=”stylesheet” type=”text/css” />
<style type=”text/css”>
(commented)
@import url(“layout.css”);
(uncommented)
</style>
</head>
Beats me. As I said, both headers look the same except for the title. Clearly the problem isn’t there.
So I tried replacing the default.css file with the one that works from the other template, and obviously it was a mess, but at least some graphics with the same name did show up. So it’s the default.css file, yes? Right? But for the life of me the code looks right. The paths, as I said, are relative. I know the problem has to be in there, but I don’t see it.
I am at the point where I either go on a random killing spree of incoherent rage or I get a new template. What I will actually do is go back into it, and keep cracking away until I get it.
Thanks for letting me think out loud in print. How’s things?
coded into a corner Read More »