Google Places Daily

While there were again dozens of stories mentioning Google Voice in the last day, most of them reprise the issues already brought up since The Event on Friday. There were just a few interesting and new comments on Google Voice itself, net neutrality and the role of the computing industry.

Orlando Sentinel: Review: Let freedom ring with Google Voice

Blogger and newspaper writer Etan Horowitz gives a detailed review of Google Voice, which he’s used since GrandCentral days. He describes the service as allowing you to put a “virtual wall around yourself”, including screening your calls and blocking some people completely. He identifies convincing people to contact you on a new number as the biggest hurdle to using Google Voice, along with making your Google Voice number show up in the Caller ID of people you’re talking to. He concludes that “Google Voice is worth it for most people, especially the self-employed, business travelers and students”.

My take: A good description, except for leaving out cheap international calls from a landline or, particularly, a cell phone.

PC World: Inevitable: Apple Should Accept Google Voice

Well-known tech journalist David Coursey calls on Apple and AT&T to let customers have Google Voice. He cites their “user-hostile” policies and how AT&T could begin to repair its image. He also describes how the companies have “already lost big in the court of public opinion” and have much more to lose as the FCC proceeds. This follows an useful earlier summary of where the Obama FCC is going.

Coursey cites the App Store problems and the iPhone’s lack of multitasking as key weaknesses. He also points out that, at this point, there aren’t many good alternatives. Palm Pre is only just emerging, still with a weak selection of apps. Android is still just reaching its stride, with the dozens of devices it’s due to appear on not yet available.

My take: Coursey’s recommendation is exactly right. Unfortunately, a reversal on Google Voice is extremely unlikely to happen, given the corporate personalities involved. Instead both are heading for much bigger trouble than the current storm in the blogosphere, unless they reverse course and take Coursey’s well-intentioned advice.

Reuters: Google’s Android to aim at businesses

Journalist Sinead Carew writes of Andy Rubin, leader of Google’s Android effort, describing how Google will aim at business. He then goes on to talk about 3D gaming and social networking as key areas of focus. The company is also advertising Google Apps on billboards. David Coursey accurately observes that Google does not yet have a compelling story, but that RIM risks falling behind.

My take: RIM didn’t get BlackBerry where it is in business with a scattershot approach. An unimpressive press appearance by Google. It may be that Android will succeed as much due to handset makers and other friends, like Coursey, as due to Google itself.

eWeek: 10 Reasons Why Apple’s Battles Will Bolster Competition

Well-known tech columnist Don Reisinger sums up why Apple’s various battles will be good for competition. Included: Apple has been a bully; other app stores, including Google’s Android Market, will serve as homes for rejected apps. He also points out that “Google isn’t to be messed with”.

My take: A good overview of some of Apple’s troubles and a cautionary tale for fans of Google.

Slate: The Great iPhone Lockdown

Slate columnist Farhad Manjoo takes on the rejection of Google Voice apps. He expertly summarizes the issues, pro and con, before coming down on the side of the FCC in acting.

If you want to understand what some of the argument is about, Slate also has an article on the broadcast spectrum, mentioning Google’s role in trying to open up access to more of it.

My take: This article demonstrates the best of old school journalism while using the flexibility of blogs, for instance in linking to related articles. The best-written and most readable summary so far, and the one you should send any friends or colleagues interested in the issue.

Information Week: Game On For Net Neutrality

Blogger Michael Hickins sums up the major points of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009, or IFPA, drafted by House Democrats Ed Markey (of climate bill fame) and Anna Eshoo. It prohibits network operators (that would be AT&T, among many others) from prioritizing, or discriminating in delivery of, content or applications; charging more for particular types of content; and preventing anyone from accessing the Internet. Providers must disclose practices that affect users. Hickins goes on to cite discrimination against Skype, SlingBox, Google Voice and others, notably (but not only) in the App Store.

My take: This bill, or at least the argument made, seems to argue that bandwidth should be free, which it isn’t. Otherwise, the devil is in the details. This bill will at least serve as a threat to network operators as to how they might be placed under a much tighter legal framework if they don’t act the way Congress wants them to.

BBC: Oiling the digital society

BBC commentator Bill Thompson explains how current competitive battles, such as the Google Voice scuffle, take place within “the larger project of embedding information technology in all aspects of our lives”, shared by all the companies and people involved in technology.

My take: Exactly! I’ve been working in tech for thirty years and this is the best I’ve heard this put.  “The Project” has attracted some of the best minds around – who have not always gone on to do the best things.