Google Voice is a great service, no doubt about it. And for non-technical users that still have a basic PSTN phone line, or a regular mobile phone, it gives them a lot of flexibility. But for those of us who are a bit more technically inclined, it’s kind of frustrating. Why? Because Google is a technology company, and yet they seem to want to “dumb down” Google Voice to the lowest common denominator.
Forget for a moment the hassle involved in making an outgoing call – sure, if you are sitting there with your old, black, rotary-dial phone and are about to make a 20 minute call to Grandma and your traditional phone company still charges for long distance like it’s 1985, then there would definitely be some appeal to going to the Google Voice site and entering the number you want to call, then having it call you and her and then bridging the call. But most people just want to dial the call and have the doggone thing go through. The Nerd Vittles folks have tackled that issue, but it’s not exactly an elegant solution, particularly if you’re not currently running an Asterisk-based PBX and using FreePBX (I don’t mean to denigrate the Nerd Vittles folks in any way by that comment; they’ve done a remarkable thing considering what they have to work with — it just really shouldn’t need to be that complicated, but that not the fault of the NV folks!). But my desire is even simpler – in the spirit of the old Grand Central service, which Google purchased to use as the basis of Google Voice, I just want to be able to receive incoming calls and direct them to where I want them to go.
And, sometimes, that means I want to direct them to a SIP address. While that could even mean going direct to a VoIP adapter, in most cases it means that I will want to send the call to a SIP server (such as an Asterisk box). The main thing is, I don’t want the call to touch the PSTN. I don’t want it possibly converted to analog and back to digital. And I certainly don’t want to see Google having to pay some PSTN company a termination charge to complete the call, when that’s absolutely unnecessary (and might even hasten the demise of a great free service).
But, you may say, Google gives us a way to do this – it lets you send the call to a Gizmo5 account…
And while it’s true that Gizmo is one of the destination choices, the problem here is that Gizmo5 has this nasty habit of changing their terms of service (EDIT: Michael Robertson, the CEO of Gizmo5, says that statement is inaccurate — see his comment, below). So far this has primarily affected outgoing calls — as was noted in the Nerd Vittles article linked above:
… What started out last Monday as a free, unlimited Google Voice service quickly morphed into a 20 minute call, and then a 3 minute call, and then 2¢ per minute for Google Voice calls. No notice to the early adopters, of course. So they’d only learn about all of this when the funds in their Gizmo5 accounts were exhausted. …
Hey, Google, can you understand that we MIGHT not want to utilize the services of a company that plays those sorts of games? But the question I’d like answered is this: What mechanism are they using to send those calls to Gizmo? And why couldn’t we have some other options – like, say, sending it to our own SIP devices or servers? Why not let us specify a server name (and optionally a port), and then send the call the call to our Google Voice number at that address (for example, if the Google Voice number were 888-555-2368 it would send the call to sip://8885552368@yourserver.dyndns.com, or whatever address you use, on port 5060 unless you optionally specify a different port).
Another suggestion might be to add e164.org as an option. This would tell Google Voice to send the call as an ENUM call to the number specified. It would not require any changes in their GUI (you’d still enter a regular phone number) but it would simply indicate that Google Voice should first try sending the call via ENUM before dumping it out to the PSTN. You can register up to four phone numbers with e164.org for free and once you add the required information, anyone can call you using ENUM and the call will go completely over the Internet. Notably, e164.org does not actually handle the call, it’s simply a directory service (think a DNS lookup for SIP calls). There’s also a newer, similar service at enumplus.org, and they actually offer a module for use with PBX in a Flash and other FreePBX-based distributions. Google Voice should allow the use of use one or both of these services to complete calls — in fact, maybe Google should consider buying one of these services, so they can operate their own ENUM registry (if Google did it, I’m sure the acceptance factor for using ENUM to route calls for free over the Internet would increase exponentially).
All I’m asking is, please, Google, give us a way to receive our Google Voice calls without letting them touch the PSTN — you’re an Internet company, for crying out loud! — and without forcing us to have a Gizmo5 account, since the moods of that company seem to change with the weather, and we don’t need them as an intermediary on our calls anyway!
EDIT: If you would like to make this request of Google Voice, you could go to their “Suggest a feature for Google Voice” page, go to the “I have another idea” section at the bottom of the page, select “Other” from the dropdown, and enter your suggestion into the text box and then click “Suggest It.” I don’t know if anyone actually reads or considers those suggestions, but maybe if enough of us requested the direct-to-SIP option, they might just make it so!
Subscribe to The Michigan Telephone blog
Michael Robertson said
I am the CEO of Gizmo5. I agree with the general premise of your article supporting SIP and user choice which is a theme we’ve championed at Gizmo5 since it’s inception.
I would like to challenge you comment that Gizmo5 has a “nasty habit” of changing outbound calls. That’s inaccurate. Here are the facts.
Two weeks ago Gizmo5 turned on a service clearly and BOLDLY labeled EXPERIMENTAL which would allow a user to place a call and use Google Voice’s callback system behind the scenes from any SIP device (software or hardware). There was no charge for this service. Also, it was stated up front THE SERVICE MAY CHANGE AT ANYTIME. We didn’t publicly announce this service in anyway although some inquisitive voip bloggers did write about it.
One week later we changed the service to switch from using unpublished Google Voice callback API commands (which could change entirely) to using our own calling network entirely. It is still a free service with no charge to the user. We do now limit the calls to free 3 minute calls which is 3 minutes longer than ANY OTHER SIP SERVICE gives users for free. If users want longer calls they can pay $10 for calling credit and then make US calls for 2 cents per minute. Our callout rates have not changed. We don’t have a “nasty habit” of changing our rates or terms. That’s unfair and inaccurate portrayal of our business. We provide the most open and reliable SIP based VOIP service in the world.
We do have a habit of launching very innovative services that give users lots of choice. e.g. We let users for free forward their Gizmo5 calls to ANY SIP service or even a GoogleTalk account for free. This puts the user in control.
We launched OpenSky which lets any SIP device call into Skype’s proprietary network for free. See: http://www.gizmo5.com/opensky Users can even use this to forward Google Voice or other calls to Skype.
We launched http://www.Gizmocall.com which lets users make and receive calls using ONLY their web browser.
Thanks for listening and commenting on Gizmo5.
michigantelephone said
Michael, first of all, thank you for dropping by to comment. I suppose you do not agree with my characterization of changes in the way you offer outbound calls as a “nasty habit”, but I’m specifically thinking back to your service that permitted outbound calls to Skype users (the “OpenSky” service you mentioned) which at the outset offered unlimited calls, then after the service had received quite a bit of “buzz” in various blogs and online forums, you put a time limit on the free calls. While it’s certainly your right to do that, it kind of leaves a bad taste when at least twice now you have started off offering a service as totally free and unlimited, then changed the terms only after you got some degree of publicity for the service, which you almost certainly would not have received had the serviced been limited at the outset.
In this case, you originally were letting people use your service as a gateway to Google Voice (which still offers free and, AFAIK, unlimited calls) and then without warning switched to using your own platform to complete calls, with a time limit before charging occurs (I’d also point out that some users say they aren’t getting the first three minutes free — see http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r22765599-Gizmo5-has-added-a-Google-Voice-section-in-its-members-area~start=320 ). That’s totally different from what you were originally doing, and definitely not what some of us wanted. If Google Voice is going to offer free outbound calls with no limits, that’s the service that some people are going to want to use. Yet you waited until the Nerd Vittles site had published a method using your platform as a bridge to Google Voice for free outgoing calls, before pulling the rug out from under us yet again.
Let me be perfectly clear, many of us appreciate the services you have offered in the past and continue to offer. Gizmo5 is a useful service even as it is today. What we object to is you offering a particular service, then suddenly changing it to something else entirely.
In this particular case, you say that the service was “clearly and BOLDLY labeled EXPERIMENTAL”, so perhaps there was some culpability on the part of those who built on top of that service, but I think what bothers some folks (or at least me) is that you gave no explanation for the sudden change. As far as we know, Google Voice didn’t force you to stop sending calls to them, and they hadn’t changed their API commands. The fact that they MIGHT do so is not a great reason to discontinue the free calling. If they actually HAD changed the API, or if someone from Google had told you to knock it off, we could understand that. But what happened was that you took away a useful service that didn’t cost money and replaced it with one that does, with no advance warning and no good explanation (other than what amounts to, “we wanted to do it”). Certainly you are within your rights to do it, but don’t expect people to be happy about it, nor to trust you in the future when offer some new service. We users are beginning to feel like Charlie Brown, and you’re playing the part of Lucy holding the football!
I don’t mean to come down on you too hard, because you’ve done a lot for the VoIP community, and many of us appreciate it. Just please try to realize that any time you offer something for free — even for a brief period of time, and even if you labeled it experimental and subject to change — people aren’t going to be happy when you change it to non-free. But they are going to be a lot LESS happy if they have already spent time writing, or installing and configuring software to use your service as it was at the beginning. I don’t suppose you’d consider offering an option to go back to your original method of passing calls on to Google Voice? You can put a bright red warning on it that the service might suddenly stop working if Google changes their API’s, and that you don’t guarantee it to work at all, but at least folks who are willing to accept those terms would still have the option.
One other point I wish you’d address – I think many of us are wondering how it came about that Gizmo5 became the exclusive SIP-only gateway from Google Voice. Did you approach them? Did they approach you? Did someone at GV just suddenly decide to include that because he was a Gizmo5 user, and it came as a surprise to you? Do you have some sort of an exclusive deal with them, that precludes them from including some other service (other than Gizmo) in their selection dropdown? If not, do you know if there is a specific person at Google Voice that’s behind this, that could be approached about offering other types of SIP connections?
anon said
Mr. Robertson conveniently forgot to mention that the gizmo companion website, http://www.gizmovoice.com originally showed the merits of using GV/G5 as being FREE vs. Skype.
Original Text: Skype Total: $70.00+
Gizmo Voice Total: $0.00
Current Text: Skype: Total: $70.00+
Gizmo Voice Total: $10.00
This created an expectation of legitimacy, with numeric proof of GV/G5 being free of cost. Furthermore, there was no BOLD EXPERIMENTAL text on the page.
So, I would have to agree with michigantelephone. The chicanery does leave a bad taste.
Doug said
As I recall, G5 pulled the football away with Backdoor Dialing as well. No explanation; one day it just stopped working.
tom said
i would certainly like to see the experimental service put back as an option. a lot of people who tried the original service also felt a bit decieved that there was not more of a desciption of how the service worked. while many quickly reliezed that it used unpublished API methods; many other people were also fooled into believe that G5 had negoetiated some kind of deal with google that gave them a legitamate SIP gateway to send outbound calls through. G5 should have been clear from the begining that they had were using workaround methods not supported by google.
also for nearly all user i believe this was all about ‘free’ since there have long been many ways to mix match SIP account and spoof caller ID. in fact it would probably be best at this point for G5 to just offer free caller ID spoofing and not even market a seperate ‘gizmovoice’ service since some people may sign up not really understanding what is going on.
by the way Mr. Robertson, i bellieve you are still using unpublish API commands to retrieve users phone numbers from there GV accounts. maybe it would be best just to ask users for their numbers(and verify via SMS or callback if you are worried about fraud) instead of using undocumnted API commands along with gmail usernames and passwords.
michigantelephone said
Doug, you’re right. I had completely forgotten about Backdoor Dialing. That was yet another thing that Gizmo5 gave and then took away without warning, explanation, or apology.
Pete said
I think “bait and switch” is the correct term for this marketing method. Get em in the store and sell em something.
Wade said
You guys are being really unrealistic and unfair to the Gizmo crew. First – they are a business – do you blame them for not being able to offer something for free forever? Second – it is totally cool that they push stuff out as beta, experimental or whatever – and make it accessible (free) – to test it out. Then once its proven – move it to production mode (paid). This is not uncommon as you might think… Iphone apps commonly are free then paid. If you want a service that never changes – call up your local phone company. If you want a company that experiments with cutting edge technology – be prepared for a few changes along the way; even changes to make something financially viable are okay too. No one gets everything right, right away do they?
michigantelephone said
Wade, I disagree with you. Had this sort of thing only happened once we could dismiss it as a miscalculation, but it’s becoming a pattern. Second, I could not disagree with you more about it being “totally cool” to push stuff out as beta and then move it to a paid model, when that intent is not clearly expressed up front AND when the changes are made with NO WARNING WHATSOEVER, and no explanation or apology. THAT is totally UNcool. And don’t even get me started on the iPhone (suffice it to say that I will never buy one, unless several things change).
Michael Robertson said
Lets be clear with the facts here. Free promotions come and go in many businesses – including ours. Because a free promotion changes does NOT make it a bait and switch. If a company says “Pay me $20 and then I’ll give you something” and then you pay the $20 and THEN they change the rules – that’s a bait and switch. If you use a free service and then one day it is no longer free or it has limits, that’s NOT a bait and switch.
Gizmo5’s SIP to Skype gateway called OpenSky has always been free for the first few minutes and then paid after that. That’s how we launched it and nothing has changed since initial launch. See: http://www.gizmo5.com/opensky
Our SIP to GoogleTalk gateway was launched as a free service and has always been free. Don’t know if this remains free forever.
Yes, we had backdoor dialing which was a special relationship we had negotiated for awhile which made it possible to call certain numbers, but then that time frame came to an end so we were no longer able to offer it. We offered this free service for 2 years which is a long time. There was never a charge for this service.
We’ve had other free calling promotions (as has many other VOIP services) which come and go. Businesses don’t have to apologize for taking away a free promotion – come on – be fair.
I’d also encourage readers of this blog to put a little more thought into their analysis. Understand that whenever a company offers something for free there’s always some who take advantage of it and abuse the system. They’ll route a 100 person office PBX into the system, find a way to call expensive rate zones, etc. It’s a shame but people are crafty.
When we turned on our EXPERIMENTAL service utilizing Google Voice callout we didn’t do any public announcement about this service. Rather some VOIP bloggers uncovered it and wrote about it. Unfortunately, there’s often abuse with any free calling service. Rather than let people exploit Google’s generosity we chose to alter the system so it used our OWN dialing network entirely. All of this happened in ONE week for a service labeled “THIS MAY CHANGE AT ANYTIME”. Not sure how much clearer or upfront we can be.
The criticism of Gizmo5 as changing the rules is simply unwarranted and unfair. When you take advantage of a free promotion then you should expect the promotions to change. Once you are a paying customer then whatever was offered up front should continue and it does at Gizmo5 and always has.
– MR
Pete said
Mikey,
When you offer free calls through Google Voice to get thousands of people to register, most buying the incoming DID number, and then SWITCH to your own network @ 2 cents a minute. That IS a bait and switch. You can do all the dancing and singing you want, but people are not fools.
You pulled a classic bait and switch and you have been called on it!
Fred said
Although I agree that Gizmo Voice could have been introduced without the questionable marketing methods. The product that was created is quite good. It gives users a free incoming number through GV, lots of free features, and resonable call out prices with the GV number displayed on caller ID. In fact if Gizmo were to create an unlimited USA calling plan for a flat fee of $20-$30 per year it would be a Magicjack killer. The ability to use Gizmo Voice with ATA or softphone and no stupid dongle is a great advantage.
Hopefully Gizmo learned something from this experience and will not suffer any long term ill will from the public. When you got a good product, honesty and fairness is the best policy. No need for the tricks.
Michael Robertson said
Pete,
Instead of speculation, please stick to the facts.
1) We didn’t get ANYONE to buy DID numbers. We didn’t sell one number. If users chose to give Google money for what Google offers that’s their decision. Google doesn’t give us any money.
2) We didn’t get “thousands” of people to signup up with us. Instead it was a tiny number of people who want everything for free and who blog lots. I understand – I like free stuff too.
3) We launched an EXPERIMENTAL SERVICE. Clearly labeled such and we didn’t ask anyone to write about it or use it. In addition it had “THIS SERVICE MAY CHANGE AT ANYTIME”. We charged NO MONEY for the service. Here’s an idea: DON’T SIGNUP FOR A FREE SERVICE LABELED “EXPERIMENTAL” AND THEN COMPLAIN WHEN IT SWITCHES. It’s that simple gang.
It’s clear some people don’t understand what a ‘bait and switch’ is. Bait and switch requires you to GET SOME MONEY in the bait part and then switch the offer. We did no such thing. We did the opposite. We clearly labeled the service as temporary and could change at anytime and we demanded and accepted no money during this period.
Nobody is locked into using Gizmo5. We offer free SIP forwarding to any service. If you don’t like Gizmo5 then forward it to your favorite service.
– MR
michigantelephone said
Note to commenters: Please be careful about using the phrase “bait and switch” – it’s a loaded phrase because it has a specific meaning in terms of commerce, and possibly law (although I am not a lawyer, so can’t comment on that). As Michael Robertson correctly points out, “Bait and switch requires you to GET SOME MONEY in the bait part and then switch the offer.”
Now, I think what some of you might have meant to say is that you felt that you were induced to sign up because the service was free, and then it suddenly was no longer free, and because of that, to you it may have felt something akin to “bait and switch” – but that doesn’t mean that it WAS “bait and switch”, as that phrase is commonly understood. There are certain words or phrases that probably should not be used unless you are talking about the real thing, and “bait and switch” is one of them.
I think it’s clear from my above comments that I’m not happy with Gizmo5’s actions, but let’s not fall into the trap of accusing them of something they’re not guilty of. Hopefully they’ve learned something about user expectations from this exchange, but it’s hard for anyone to learn anything when they are on the defensive for being accused of something they didn’t do. So going forward, if you use the phrase “bait and switch” in this thread, I probably either won’t approve it, or will edit your comment. Let’s rachet it down a notch here, so we can hopefully have a productive discussion. Thanks.
And to MR: You keep saying the service was “EXPERIMENTAL” – all I can say is that I never noticed that. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, just saying that it perhaps wasn’t as clearly labeled as you might think. In any case, since you’re handing out advice, I’ll offer some to you: DON’T OFFER A FREE SERVICE AND THEN SUDDENLY SHUT IT DOWN OR CHANGE THE TERMS WITH NO ADVANCE WARNING, because if you do, people WILL complain – it’s just human nature. An apology and/or explanation would go a long way too (and by apology, I simply mean something like “we’re sorry we can’t offer this service for free anymore”, in case you are thinking I mean something more than that). But basically, people hate it when they are using a service and the one day it just stops working, or worse yet, they see their account balance declining when they think they are using a free service. Granted they get a lot more angry if they actually paid significant money for the service (Sunrocket, anyone?) but even if it’s free, it’s a pain when it just disappears, or changes in such a way that you start getting charged for something that used to be free.
Pete said
MR-This is quoted from the Gizmo Voice instructions: “If you don’t have a US phone number, you can purchase a Call-in number from my.gizmo5.com for $12. Since you will only need this number for the initial setup, you can purchase the 3 month option. To verify your number, launch Gizmo5…”
Now are you saying that nobody purchased the $12 DID number from you in order to try your “experimental” service? Are you sure that you really want to say that?
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait_and_switch
In retail sales, a bait and switch is a form of fraud in which the party putting forth the fraud lures in customers by advertising a product or service at an unprofitably low price, then reveals to potential customers that the advertised good is not available but that a substitute is. This term has lots of other meanings, even outside of the marketing sense.
Now I think free is an unprofitably low price, but that’s just my opinion. The sysop can delete from “Wikipedia” down if you don’t want this in the post.
michigantelephone said
Pete/Fred (yes, I do see that both “Pete” and “Fred” are coming in from the same IP address), I only let your previous comment stand because it reinforces my point – you may have your opinion, but that’s all it is – just your opinion. And the Wikipedia definition explains why — Gizmo5 has NOT committed fraud, in any sense of the word, since they didn’t make any promises related to these free services (at least that’s my opinion, but again, I’m not a lawyer).
Fraud is a very strong accusation to make, and if the definition of “bait and switch” includes an allegation of fraud, then I think that’s entirely inappropriate in this case. Gizmo5 might have been guilty of not understanding the human factor, that is, how people would react to what they did and the way they did it, but I certainly don’t see any attempt to defraud anyone. No one can stop you from holding whatever opinion you wish, but you should be careful of what you accuse others of in a public forum.
Now, if you had purchased a $12 number and then somehow felt you did not get your money’s worth, and Gizmo5 refused to give you a credit or a refund, that would be something we could discuss. But you don’t say that anything like that ever happened, so from where I sit, you’re just using very loaded words to emphasize your opinions. Unfortunately, those are the kind of loaded words that could get you in trouble someday, so I’d suggest you cool it.
Pete said
You are right, I got carried away and let my opinions get in the way of known facts. I will take the advice you gave Mr. Robinson and apologize for any opinion I expressed that sounded like an accusation of intentional wrongdoing on the part of Gizmo or its CEO. Michael is correct that I like to blog and sometimes get caught up in the fray. I meant no harm, it is just me.
I apologize Mr. Robinson…I made a misjudgement as we all do from time to time. As I reflect on the whole thing, I think maybe we both did in our own way.
Mark said
Interesting discussion. Back when Gizmo was Sipphone (I suppose it still is), I spent probably well over 100 hours of screwing around with my setup (and I believe myself to be competent when it comes to technical matters), simply because it was not working correctly with Sipphone. Things may have changed since then, but my general impression left me feeling that the guys working at Sipphone “mostly” know what they’re doing on the technical side of things, but not completely. When I used an alternate service (free-world-dialup), I *never* ran into problems with one-way audio, etc. which I had with Sipphone, and nothing about my setup had changed (firewalls, configuration options, etc.). This gave me more confidence in my assessment that there was some level of technical incompetence going on at sipphone, despite their marketing skill.
So, my two cents on the matter are this — I could care less what Gizmo/sipphone does in terms of changing their offerings, but I do care if I have no choice but to use a single SIP provider which I don’t have a lot of confidence in (in terms of technical quality/reliability of service).
MR’s quote “We provide the most open and reliable SIP based VOIP service in the world” makes me cringe a little, because while I’m not sure what is meant by ‘open’ (it certainly doesn’t mean open-source, as Gizmo5 is not open-source, as I understand it), in terms of reliability (if that means ‘does it consistently work with no glitches?’), this statement does not at all reflect my experience.
DJ said
While I would love for GIZMO to give me free inbound and outbound calls, I understand it would not be financially sustainable. The 3 minute free offer works well for me. The inbound service using Grandstream 486 has proven extremely reliable, and I by using the google voice interface, my outbound calls are free. I did purchase $10 gizmo credit for the rare occasions I want to dial a call (over three minutes) directly without using the computer.
I’ve tried a ton of different VOIP services… SUNROCKET, ViaTalk, MagicJack, Skype etc… Gizmo is the most reliable I’ve used… your mileage may have varied.
Mark said
Some interesting points here about Gizmo5.
SLIM said
I think michigantelephone’s statements have been verified, in my opinion, of course. There are people who are angry with the fact that there was no warning to the change. I believe MR does have the right to change it in any way he’d like but the fact that there was no warning what-so-ever is what most of us (or at least I think) are unsatisfied with. As a respectable person with a great service, (again in my opinion) you should’ve had the modesty to come out and explain to what the progress to this experimental service is. We are your customers and also would’ve liked to be informed of these changes. Again, I don’t mind at all paying for such a great service but from what I understand (in my point of view) is that your customers would’ve liked to been infromed on the status of this experiment. We would have understood because, of course, some do take advantage of the fact that it was a free sevice and do, in turn, abuse it. But, most other customers who are still using your service without complaints, and did not abuse it do deserve some kind of exlpaination, don’t you think?
Again, this is just my speculation. I do not intend any accusation or in any way talk down on such a great service.
Free-Or-Not said
Just my 2 cents…
If Giz5 would continue to provide a free service that the masses want, it would help drive customers/traffic to their website, and that can only be a good thing. A while back I signed up for a Giz5 account and have since canceled it because I’m not willing to pay to use my free GV#. I have found another COMPLETELY FREE solution that cuts Giz5 out of the equation all together (which is fine by me, but Giz5 lost a potential customer).
Long and short of it, by giving the ‘taste’ of this service and retracting it has left a bad flavor in my mouth and I wont attempt to use Giz5 services again in fear that they may pull the rug out at any time. I’m guessing other people feel the same way.
Michael Robertson said “Businesses don’t have to apologize for taking away a free promotion – come on – be fair. ”
So if GMAIL/MSN/Yahoo decided to go to a paid version and you had to pay a monthly fee to access all you saved email… would you that be fair? I think not…