Google Voice is now Officially Supported on OBi VoIP devices
ramjet73:
Quote from: Crow550 on September 21, 2014, 12:10:33 am
I just wanted to point out that from what people who are either reps or engineers in the Forums have told me and others that using the Feedback Tool to submit feature requests for example the G-CallerID being integrated into G-Voice would not be a form of spamming from what I gathered from the feedback from the reps / engineers in the Forums.
Could you explain what you mean by "G-CallerID"? I'm already getting CID on most of my inbound calls from GV and CNAM is something that Google could offer but there would be a cost associated with it that Google would either need to absorb or pass back to users who might complain about the service no longer being free.
Are you aware of how CNAM works for ITSP's that already offer it? Could you explain in a little more detail how you see Google implementing it and recovering their costs?
Crow550:
Sure. Android currently has a CallerID system that was introduced in 4.4. More info here: https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/3459196?hl=en
ramjet73:
Quote from: Crow550 on September 21, 2014, 12:38:31 am
Sure. Android currently has CallerID system they introduced in 4.4. More info here: https://support.google.com/nexus/answer/3459196?hl=en
That is neither CID or CNAM as defined by the telephony standards. What that represents is a form of private address book that Google will use to match the phone number (CID) with the contacts it has available in its own databases versus doing a lookup for that number in the official CNAM database that is maintained by all the service providers. The official CNAM database normally has a charge associated with adding/updating the name for a given number and that can only be done by the service provider that "owns" that number. There is also a charge for each access to the database when looking up an incoming number (CID).
If it's a Sprint number you maintain it through Sprint, Verizon through Verizon, etc. So Google could probably update the public database for numbers it assigns or ports into GV and do lookups for incoming calls from other providers and that would be CNAM but that's not what you are suggesting. With "G-CallerID" as you call it the names may or not match what is stored in the public CNAM database for that number, which would also be the case when you keep a private directory on your phone or at an ITSP, and that may or may not be a problem depending on which name you want to receive for inbound calls but it's definitely not CNAM.
If you are going to make suggestions to Google and/or discuss them in public forums it's always a good idea to get a clear understanding of what the terms you are using mean. Since Obihai's use of Google Voice is more like an ITSP than an Android phone app CNAM would be more appropriate and I don't think Google will allow access to its contact databases by third parties anyway. Technically Google could offer CNAM services but that may or may not fit with their technology and/or business plans.
genesishep:
Quote from: SteveInWA on September 20, 2014, 07:38:44 pm
Your endless posts lobbying for features here and on the GV forum are getting tiresome. This isn't a petition drive, and Google won't be influenced by a talent show voting game. Features get developed based on many factors, including technical feasibility, business justification, and cost; user interest is just one factor. Believe me, a lot of engineers and product managers smarter than you are evaluating which features to include or not include in their products.
Telling people to spam Google with requests isn't going to win you any friends over there.
I saw nothing in his post that comes close to a call to spam the GV Forum. What I saw was an idea and the very true statement that if others would like that feature the best way to let Google know about it is to provide feedback in the appropriate GV forums. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What doesn't sound reasonable is for self proclaimed forum police to target/harass someone into apologizing for doing nothing more than offering a suggestion and a means to express it.
Google and those moderating the GV Forums ASK for feedback from their users. Period. They do so because plenty of those "oh so smarter than you" engineers DO forget to add very simple things. Over the years I have been friends with many engineers and programmers who are absolutely terrible at relating to everyday people in normal social situations. In many ways they would rather interact with technology than other human beings. Are all who work in the tech world this way? Of course not, but plenty are. Feedback is absolutely necessary for that reason alone. Sometimes the technologically inclined forget how to communicate with the rest of the world. Feedback from Mr. Average Joe is exactly what keeps things in line. And yes, 1,000 requests do weigh more heavily than one.
To Crow550, you did nothing wrong and had nothing to apologize for. Don't allow self proclaimed forum police to brow beat you into apologizing for nothing. No matter how many forum posts they have under their little username. It means nothing and does not grant them a pass when they are overtly rude to others. Those who insist upon acting like that do so because they either have very little control over other things in their real life or the opposite, more control over others than they should ever have and feel that control should extend everywhere. It doesn't.
ramjet73:
Quote from: genesishep on October 01, 2014, 11:14:22 am
I saw nothing in his post that comes close to a call to spam the GV Forum. What I saw was an idea and the very true statement that if others would like that feature the best way to let Google know about it is to provide feedback in the appropriate GV forums. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. What doesn't sound reasonable is for self proclaimed forum police to target/harass someone into apologizing for doing nothing more than offering a suggestion and a means to express it.
IMO the real problem is asking other users to support a campaign for an enhancement that isn't well thought out. It's one thing to throw something out on your own and another thing to ask other people to jump into the pool with you.
Do you know what he meant by "For CNAM.... Google should just integrate their Google Caller ID that's in the Android Dialer with G-Voice"? If so, please explain. I'm still not clear if his statement refers to "CNAM" for Obihai devices configured for Google Voice, all inbound and/or outbound calls from/to any Google Voice connected device (which would override the official CNAM databases) or something entirely different.
Bottom line, if you are going to ask other users to join you in requesting enhancements, make sure they are well researched and clearly explained.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page