Damn. Found that in an Engadget article.
So basically I got a 20% chance of getting supa-fast T-Mobile in major cities and an 80% chance the rest of the time in getting stone age speed 3G from Sprint.
Boo.
You meant TMobile and Sprint? Unless that's intentionally in jest
Damn. Found that in an Engadget article.
So basically I got a 20% chance of getting supa-fast T-Mobile in major cities and an 80% chance the rest of the time in getting stone age speed 3G from Sprint.
Boo.
I think the idea behind it is great, but I think those 2 carriers need a lot better coverage and speed for it to be viable at all. I know my T-Mobile coverage is spotty at best, and I have no idea how Sprint is in my area. I just know that they're the slowest carrier out there, so if I end up getting on their 3G, I'm going to experience dial-up speeds.
That base $20 price is too much. No incentive to switch from T-Mobile.
Question though, if we only pay for the data we use, then why would anyone sign up for anything more than 1GB per month? Whatever more you use you would pay for after the fact, why pay for it beforehand? I didn't see any mention of overage fees on their site which is why I'm asking.
GVoice is a dead product. People need to stop hoping that it's going to become something. The initial idea was Grand Central meaning you give one number and you can get notified anywhere.
It was one time useful for free texting, but I feel like porting your number over was a big mistake that many people fell for. The better idea back in 2010/2011 when people saw the rise of mobile messaging, was to just get the hell on WhatsApp back then instead of waiting til today.
That's a great question. I have no idea why you would pay for more because there isn't an overage. You can pay $30 per month and if you use 4 GB, you pay $40 instead.. So I'm not sure why they would even differentiate that.
What do you mean it's a 'dead product'? It works fine just as it is, as it's always been. It's not for everyone, obviously, and this is completely fine. And as someone who had a number that I carried over since Grand Central, the service is clearly better now than when it was before Google.
If at one time it was useful for free texting, then it's still useful for free texting now (and now, also free calling, with Hangouts). So, why do you think porting number over to GV is now suddenly a big mistake?
The best deal IMHO is the Wal Mart/TMobile plan, 100 voice/1000 texts/5GB for $30/month pre paid.
Google Voice isn't perfect, but I've used it for years now, big thumbs up.
Anyone know/read if the coverage of Project Fi is identical to T-Mobile + Sprint Postpaid Network? Or whether it is just a combination of their prepaid/MVNO network. This might not be that much of a difference to a lot of people, but to some people it might be significant enough to tip the scale one way or the other.
Soccerballtux, TMobile and Sprint already have WiFi calling technology implemented. Google does not need to reinvent the wheel.
Yeah it's odd how they're ignoring GV users. I really was expecting to see a data only option for those of us who use GV. Oh well, $50 per month plus getting credit for unused data and on both Sprint and Tmobile is not bad at all.
It think calling sprint dial up speed is being too kind. Unless we're talking 80's dial up.
Oh yeah, when I was writing software, I would just call up other companies and ask them for source code, they had no problem providing it
Google has consistent difficulty efficiently and cleanly executing on new features.
Unlike other MVNOs which sometimes had to hide which major network they're really using (e.g. PagePlus is not allowed to say the word 'Verizon'), Project Fi straight out of the gate says that Google is working together with T-Mobile and Sprint for this. Why wouldn't Google has access to whatever established system the two have already implemented, to support this partnership?
I'm not going to pretend that I know what's going on behind close doors on these type of multi-companies agreement, but it just seems unlikely that Google had to start from scratch on this particular thing. The hand-offs between wi-fi and cellular network is already going to either of the two carriers, my thinking is that they would be happy to provide Google with what it needs to make it work. This is their thing just as much as Google's.
actually, it is possible they would be given source from both implementations, and then merge them. What's unlikely, is that they will thoroughly test it and bugfix it. That's what they need me for.
Why does this only work on Nexus 6? What specific capabilities does the Nexus 6 have that other phones don't, that make only the N6 supportable on Google Fi?
Why does everyone get so excited about everything google does? Everyone's so erect about this game changer, but isn't walmart cheaper or about the same price? I didn't see anyone ejaculating over walmart's $30 plan, or straight talk's $40 data only plan which is 4 gigs for $10 less than what google would charge you. I get it, competition is good but I don't see why everyone's impressed - it's another half measure, google doesn't want to alienate the carriers so they release something half-assed instead of something game changing (which they should have had the balls to do). Heck, google fiber was incredibly exciting years ago, look how fast they built that out! /s