The Needless and Inexplicable Flounderization of Google Apps Users

Do you ever feel like there are so many cool and amazing things to do on the net, that you feel overwhelmed? If so, I have a guaranteed solution for you. Become a Google Apps user.

I ranted a few weeks ago about Google’s unwavering policy to deny Google Apps users the ability to use its newest features. Lots of people reacted sympathetically and emotionally to that post, so I am clearly not the only Google Apps user who is unhappy about this. In fact, I suspect that a lot of people are wondering why they elected to put themselves at a comparative disadvantage to the rest of the planet by going all-in with Google.

Now comes the (sort of) much anticipated Google+ Project. It actually looks great. One of the good things about being a 15-plus year tech blogger is that I know a lot of other technophiles (e.g., geeks). It’s a rare thing when I don’t get an early invite to new applications. I’d dearly love love to try Google+.

But I can’t.

Because like just about everything else Google releases, Google+ requires a Google Profile. Which Google Apps users still can’t have.

It gets even worse.

With the release of Google+, Google seems to be opening up more cloud space, in an attempt to attract more loyal Google users. As Yahoo ignores Flickr to death, it is a good time to start thinking about alternatives. Google has begun offering almost unlimited space to its loyal Picasa users. Just not its most loyal users- Google Apps users need not apply.

When I asked Google why Google Apps users are getting hosed, they gave me an unsatisfactory but completely accurate answer.

This makes no sense. At first, I thought it was just a matter of the left hand and the right hand operating separately, and at different speeds. But if we still can’t even use Google Buzz a year and a half after it was “coming soon,” no one should be holding their breath.

It’s hard to come up with any good reason for Google to continuously leave Apps users out in the cold.

Which leaves only bad reasons. Apathy? Cluelessness? Are they just being mean? Do they hate us?

Someone will inexplicably try to mount a defense for Google by playing the “Apps are for Enterprise” card. Fine, then make all the cool stuff an option, for the Google Apps Admins to select or not, as they see fit. There is simply no way that taking choices away can be spun as good for the customer. We’re not talking about skydiving here. We’re talking about using web apps. The same web apps that Google hopes will be the vanguard for its latest assault on the social web.

Come on, Google. Stop screwing with your most loyal users. The Flounderization of Google Apps users is bad business.

Do you love irony and social activism? Then +1 this post so Google will see that Apps users are getting tired of standing in the back of the line.

In the Game of Clouds, You Win or You Die

That collective sigh of relief you heard today came from Amazon and Google, happy that they will live to fight another day in the war for the cloud.

When Steve Jobs, the formidable Warden of the West, took the stage at WWDC today, much of the world expected him to land a killing blow to the aspirations of Amazon Cloud Drive and Google Music. It didn’t happen. While interesting, the much anticipated iCloud is not going to march through cyberspace like a host of digital Lannisters and ascend to the aluminum throne.

Not by a long shot. In fact, Instapaper and Dropbox probably suffered more casualties today than any of the others who aspire to rule the cloud.

First of all, iCloud is not a streaming music service, in the way we have come to expect. It’s more like a semi-automated Dropbox that syncs your music between up to 10 devices. That’s great, but it is not a game changer.

Second, it doesn’t, at least as far as I can tell, create a remote backup of your music files in the cloud. That would be pretty hard to do with only 5 GB of space. Maybe you get to almost the same place if you can bulk download your songs, but even that would be Ned Stark to the neither rational nor reliable music industry, and the term and terms of its license agreements with Apple. Stated another way, if I have to choose between the mild hassle of a one time upload of my music library (and the resulting certainty that I have accessible files that I own) and $25 a year for the rest of my life (with only the right to access the songs based on the terms of the iTunes Match agreements), I’ll probably gut it up and upload, so I can keep the money, and the files.

At first blush, I think the music labels may have been clever like a fox in agreeing to this deal. It must be refreshing for them to focus on something other than trying to find the digital cat to stuff back into the obsolete bag. In that regard, I’d be shocked if part of the discussions that led up to Apple’s license with- and payment of big bucks to- the music labels wasn’t some express or implied assurances that the music label cartel will march against the digital lockers of Amazon and Google.

Third, how many people want all of their music converted to AAC format? I have MP3s and don’t know that I want to move to another format just to avoid some uploading time. A better bitrate is nice, but not enough for me to completely change formats. Accordingly, anyone wanting to preserve their non-iTunes music in its current state would have to manage and backup two separate sets of music. Their existing MP3s and the converted AAC files. That is not the sort of cloud convergence I was hoping for.

Fourth, iTunes. Frickin’ iTunes. Even with all the automation promised by iCloud. Even with the ability to sync wirelessly. We still have to live with that blight and bloat called iTunes. If Apple wants to change the world, it should start with iTunes. Never before has a program so badly needed a do-over. It needs to be completely rewritten. It does not need to be the vanguard of Apple’s host- in the cloud or on the digital battlefield.

And finally, time. Amazon Cloud Player (to all) and Google Music (to some) are available right now. Presumably, Spotify is going to finally and officially launch in the United States at some point. Meanwhile, iCloud is coming “in the fall.” The fall, in online time, means a long time from now. You can be assured that Amazon and Google know that winter is coming, and are hard at work trying to expand their lead. It will be very interesting to see how much those services improve between now and the arrival of iCloud.

At the end of the day, consumers are caught between three armies, each with its own advantages and disadvantages.

Amazon has integration with Amazon’s MP3 store. That alone will carry it a long way on the path to fealty. But Amazon’s web player is a little kludgy (though less so than iTunes). On the downside, there is little chance that an Amazon Cloud Player app will find its way onto the App Store.

Google has the most elegant interface. It is the one I use the most, with Spotify looming as a contender, if it every officially launches in the United States (I still think Spotify is pretty cool, but I don’t know if I’ll live long enough to officially use it). But there is no embedded music store, and the process of getting your music into Google’s cloud is not as simple as I’d like.

Apple has iOS and the hardware that runs it, and, more importantly, the keys to the App Store, which is almost dragon-like on the battlefield. I have an iPhone and an iPad, and whatever apps I use are going to have to work on those devices. And, of course, Apple has the Warden of the West, who can sell ice to Eskimos purely on personality. But, again, the feature set of iCloud is pretty underwhelming. And the entire infrastructure is tainted by the mere existence of iTunes.

Generally speaking, competition is good for consumers. That’s probably the case here. However, I can’t help but feel a little disappointed that there will not be, at least any time soon, a one stop cloud for all of my digital content. I was expecting to be blown away today. Instead, it looks like cloud music will require a combination of services, and maybe some work-arounds. Much the way Google Voice requires some work-arounds to dial out. It works, but not as well as you want it to.

So here we sit, Ned Stark like, in the dark, waiting for someone to free us from our digital dungeons. Wondering what’s going on out on the battlefield and worrying that whatever happens probably won’t be what we planned.

Here’s hoping Amazon and Google unite their banners and lay siege to the scourge that is iTunes. It probably won’t happen, but it would make things interesting if it did.

Why Netflix Needs to Rethink Its Programming Controls

I was going to comment on this via Twitter, but I couldn’t make my point in 140 characters, without looking like an extremist. And that, I am not. At least not when it comes to content accessibility.

I’m generally on the side of those who argue that most content should be made available, and that filters should occur on the individual level. If content is filtered on the front end (e.g., by the people who control access to content), the choice is taken away from the individual. Philosophically, that bothers me. Plus, I have a much broader view of what is interesting than a lot of my friends. I’m a Simpsons and Southpark fan, whereas many of my fuddy-duddy friends turn their noses up at those shows.

But there are lines, and it looks like Netflix has stumbled over one.

Davis Freeberg reports that Netflix is streaming (e.g., allowing users to watch instantly) the Death Scenes movies.

I’ve never seen these movies, and I’m not going to get into any detail about them. But I am aware of them and what they contain. Davis describes them:

For those not familiar with the Death Scenes series, it’s a collection of extremely graphic video clips that show the murder and execution of countless individuals.

Look, I’m not sure why anyone would want to watch this stuff. But that’s not my point. I view this sort of like smoking and barking dogs. I don’t care if it happens, as long as it doesn’t affect me. My issue is that Netflix has these films online and immediately available for any of its users to watch.

Let’s talk about porn. We all know its out there. People feel all kinds of different ways about it. But one thing almost everyone agrees on is that it should not be available to anyone, at any time, at the press of a Play button. Imagine the outrage if Netflix suddenly added hundreds of adult films, with no restrictions. Didn’t some network get in trouble because of Janet Jackson’s one second boob shot? Something else I don’t really want to see.

There is a nuance here, that needs to be explored. When I say that I’m on the side of those who argue that most content should be made available and that I think certain content should be harder to access, I am being consistent, and pragmatic. You generally have to jump though some protective hoops to access the sort of content that is deemed inappropriate for certain viewers. It doesn’t mean you can’t see it. It simply means that others don’t have to inadvertently see it. It’s a reasonable balance.

There is no reason to treat these Death Scenes films any differently. Surely, Netflix knows that kids are among its most passionate users. The Death Scenes movies are inaccurately described as documentaries, and the info pages make them seem like horror films. I can easily see how someone could begin watching these films without knowing what they are getting into. I’d love to know what the Netflix folks were thinking when they made these films so easily accessible. I think I know what a lot of their customers are going to think. They’re going to think about whether Netflix is appropriate for their kids.

Netflix does offer some parental controls.

But there are lots of problems with them. One, the levels are not sufficient. The Death Scenes movies are “Not Rated.” I don’t know that any of the above levels would block them. Maybe checking “R and below” would block them. But what about acceptable movies and documentaries that are also not rated? I don’t want to block a lot of acceptable stuff to avoid a little unacceptable stuff. Plus, any filter you put in place applies to all viewers. I’d be fine prohibiting some members of my household from watching R rated movies, but others would rightfully rebel. I’m not going to change and then re-set filters every time someone wants to watch a movie.

Netflix needs to be more proactive in its programming choices, and more robust in its control options.

Calling All Mix Masters: Turntable.fm Rocks

Back in college, I was a DJ at one of the local bars. It was a fun gig, and, at least in my selective memory, I had mad skills. Mad skills, I tell ya! I’d love to show my mix skills around the house, but my kids hate my Allman Brothers records about as much as I hated my parents’ lame Vic Damone LPs.

Now, maybe I can find a willing crowd, thanks to Turntable.fm. Turntable.fm lets you create shared listening rooms where you and your friends (or strangers, if you prefer) can take turns queuing up and playing songs. You can search for songs already on the site (I had mixed results doing this, with some songs being incomplete) or you can upload your own. The uploading process is fast and easy and, importantly, MP3 tags are recognized and processed accurately. Once you upload songs, they remain in your playlist until you remove them. There are limitations on how often artists can be played per hour, which indicates that the required licensing is in place.

I created the Rancho Room, dedicated to less known alt. country, southern rock, country rock, classic rock & whatever else sounds good. Some old-timers will recall the original Rancho Room, a chat room I developed, circa 1995, where we had some hilarious times back in the day. Anyone remember those collaborative stories we wrote?

The best way for social network fledglings to understand Turntable.fm is to imagine a shared, streaming radio station, with a rotating playlist created by the people in the room. I have no chance of getting enough friends in the room at the same time to create any kind of a real-time scene. But what I – and hopefully others- can do is upload some good songs, play them for my own ears when I want to hear them, and maybe some other folks will stop by to listen. If I can get a little traction, maybe some of my friends will create their own playlists and, who knows, if we happen to be listening at the same time, our songs will be meshed into a collaborative playlist.

There’s a rating feature for songs, but I haven’t enticed anyone else to create a playlist yet, so I ‘m not sure how it works. Once I get some of you onboard, we’ll try it out.

You can share your DJ status to Facebook or Twitter with a click of a button.

I’ve tried a lot of socially oriented music apps, and some of them are fun. But I haven’t seen any others with as much “fun” potential as Turntable.fm. In a universe of half-baked ideas tossed haphazardly into the social networking space, I think Turntable.fm is really onto something. I like this app. A lot.

At the end of the day, the Turntable.fm experience probably depends on your ability (or lack thereof) to get a core group of users to populate your room. You can probably solve this hurdle by creating a public room. I’m hoping to limit my room to people who enjoy the same sort of music I do, so the Rancho Room is unlisted for now (fear not, you are invited). I know a lot of people who love the same music I do. Can I get them to try the service? That’s a good question. At least there’s no way it will end as badly as my 2005 Flickr experiment did.

One thing I don’t like is that users have to sign up and in before they can visit a room. That seems like an unnecessary hurdle to growth. Sure, people should have to sign up to create a room, and maybe to DJ, but folks should have the ability to visit without signing up. An easy way to handle this would be to allow a limited number of “guest” listeners per room. I also don’t like the degree to which the service is tied to Facebook. If you have a Facebook Friend who uses the service, you’re in. But what if I want to invite a (lower case) friend who isn’t on Facebook? Does that work? I could make this app rock, but these limitations make it harder than it should be.

So. Do you like alt. country, southern rock, country rock and/or classic rock? If so, come on in and take a listen. If you like what I’m trying to do, drop me an email or Facebook message, and I’ll send you a DJ link (I have to have an email address to invite you to DJ, unless we are Facebook Friends).

Here’s my playlist, so far.

As a songwriter, tech blogger and music fan, Turntable.fm lies at the crossroads of my interests. I’m pretty excited about it.

Come on in, and take a listen.

Google +1 Plus Google Apps Equals Nothing

The internets are all worked up today over the release of Google’s latest attempt to be meaningful in the social networking arena: Google’s +1 button. It sort of reminds me of the excitement over the soon to be shuttered Google Wave, which was actually an awesome application, and the probably soon to be shuttered Google Buzz, which isn’t.

Being deeply in love with most things Google, most particularly the Chrome browser, I’d love to give +1 a try. Except that I can’t. Once again Google Apps users- yes, some of whom (not me, yet) are paying customers- are left out of the premiere party.

No worries says Google, again- Apps users will soon have the ability to use Google Profiles, and +1. Soon may be a relative thing, however, given that Apps users still can’t use Buzz, over a year later.

Look, I realize this is not a huge deal. But here’s the thing. I would venture that Apps users are among the most loyal Google users. People who would jump right in and do their part to kick-start just about any new Google app. I know that, like a digital vampire, I have turned every Internet Explorer and Firefox user I can find into the walking Chrome.

I don’t understand why Google can’t roll features out to all users- including its most avid- at the same time.

I’d love to write about using +1. Instead, I’m writing about the fact that I can’t use +1. That’s a lose, lose equation.

Anyone want to +1 me up, since I can’t play?

Editing in the Cloud: The Killer Feature that Gives Google Music the Cloud Advantage

googlemusic I was pretty excited when Amazon beat the crowd that matters to the cloud with the Amazon Cloud Player. Since I buy all of my music from Amazon, it is convenient to have my music purchases sent directly to my Amazon cloud, for immediate playing, and downloading only as needed.

I was so excited, in fact, that I bought a bunch more cloud space and began the arduous process of moving my huge music collection to the cloud.

But there was a little problem. Like many audiophiles, I am pretty anal where my music tags and artwork are concerned. If I see a mislabeled genre or mixed up album cover, I need- who am I kidding, I simply must have- a way to quickly fix it.

On the Amazon cloud, that’s not all that easy to do. Amazon doesn’t (yet) provide a way to edit song or album details from the cloud. You have to download the songs you want to fix, delete them from the cloud, fix them locally and then re-upload them.

That’s sort of a drag. Figuratively and literally. I also find Amazon’s music uploader less than elegant and not very reliable.

With Google’s recent introduction of Google Music, there is a new competitor in the cloud. While it’s early, I think I slightly prefer Google’s look and feel.

But probably not enough to outweigh the ability to send my Amazon purchases directly to my Amazon cloud. However, I quickly discovered a feature that tips the scale decidedly in favor of Google. It’s much more appealing than Lady Gaga. It’s the ability to edit from the cloud!

Sweet!

At the end of the day, the process to get my new music from Amazon to Google Music is pretty simple, and automated. I configured Google Music Manager to monitor my Amazon download folder, and automatically upload whatever shows up there.

I agree that Apple may one day deliver a cloud-dominating knock-out punch, but that may take some time, as you can never count out the innovation adverse music industry (as an aside, I get a few dollars from BMI every quarter or so, and I still can’t abide the obstacles these organizations keep tossing on the path to access). They may be trying to protect someone’s income, but I’m not certain it’s the songwriters’.

In any event, I’m pretty excited about Google Music. The 20,000 song limit will prevent me from moving all of my music there (at least until cheap extra storage becomes available, like Amazon offers).

But as of now, it’s leading the race to become my default music manager. Stay tuned, however, because the race is just beginning.

Is There Even One Decent Facebook App?

If there is, I’ve never seen or heard of it.

I’ve largely come around on Facebook as the only efficient way to keep up with people who don’t share my love of things nerdy. That includes about 99% of my friends and every member of my family over 13.

The fact is that Facebook is simply inevitable. Resistance is both futile and isolating.

But Facebook has a huge problem. No it’s not the fact that Microsoft saved Facebook from itself by taking the bait and grossly overpaying for Skype. It’s the apps.

It’s the fact that none of them are worth a crap. I have spent far more time filtering out stupid Facebook apps than I have using them. In fact, I have 74 apps filtered out of my Facebook stream. The list grows constantly.

From Hearts to Hugs to Best Friend Quiz to Egg Buddies to anything Ville to Mafia Wars to various sweepstakes. None of it is worth a crap, and all of it is junk. Unless I want to become a mouse clicking zombie in service to some developer’s bank account, not one of them benefits me in any way.

It’s the fact that it seems like most Facebook apps are malware. I am now conditioned to look for a warning- “Do not click on this or that”- whenever I see an appish-looking post in my Facebook stream. Facebook apps have the same trust level as links in spam.

It’s the fact that, even if an app is technically not malware, you have no idea what it can access, and what it, in turn, discloses and to whom. You have more privacy at a nudist camp that you do on Facebook.

In sum, the entire Facebook app ecosystem is broken.

It needs to be demolished and rebuilt from the ground up. There’s just no way to salvage any kind of trust out of the chaos that Facebook has created. Facebook needs to take a page from Apple’s book and worry about protecting its users, not serving them up as fodder to scammers and shady apps.

It should happen. But until people vote with their filters, it probably won’t.

Snoozing Through the Xoom and iPad 2 Hype

I’m a regular of my iPad and used my Galaxy Tab a few times before concluding that it sucks. As such, I keep an eye on the waves of new and updated tablets that crash, in varying levels of completeness, onto our shores almost daily.

I like the Galaxy Tab’s pocket-appropriate size

The two new tablets I’ve been most interested learning about are the new Motorola Xoom, because it comes with Honeycomb, the tablet-centric version 3.0 of Google’s Android OS, and the iPad 2, because, well, it comes from Apple.

Now that I’ve seen both, I’m a little underwhelmed. There are things to like about both devices, but I’m not going to buy either one. Here’s why.

ipadf
But the iPad is more elegant and has better apps.

The Xoom looks really nice, and Honeycomb is a significant improvement over the current versions of Android. But it’s too expensive, too big (I really like the smaller size of the Galaxy Tab) and, inexplicably, it has to be sent back to the manufacturer in a few months to be updated to the new 4G network. Maybe it would have been better to wait a little longer and release a mature product. There’s simply no way I’m going to buy some device, put all my stuff on it, become dependent on it, and then mail it somewhere to be upgraded.

The iPad 2 has some nice new features, like a faster chip and cameras, but it only added one item from my wish list. I view it as a minor step in the upgrade path, and expect the next version, likely to be out next year, to have more material improvements to offer. Like a better display, wireless syncing, etc.

So for the time being, I’m going to keep on using the tablets I have and wait for a more compelling reason to upgrade.

Get Out of My Yard: Why I Don’t Want Targeted Ads

I don’t want them. I. Don’t want. Them.

notrespassing

One of the first rules to effective communication is to never enter a debate with a group of people you respect if you know they will all vigorously disagree with you. It’s hard to get out of the gate when you lead with your chin.

I’m fixing to break that rule.

Two of my friends, Louis Gray and Jesse Stay, are agreeing that targeted ads are not as bad as some of us think they are. And that the binary nature of the current do-not track applications is not ideal. Either because targeted ads are better than random ads, or because there is or might one day be a better way to control personal data. I like and respect both of these guys and generally agree with them on technological issues.

But not this time.

While there may one day be better ways to keep people from spying on me, there aren’t now. And since the internet at large is waging war on our privacy and our ability to protect the boundaries between the online content we seek and the content developers want to force upon us, do-not track solutions are the best cover we can find. Sure, if I’m getting shot at, I’d prefer to take cover in a tank, but if there’s not one handy, a burned out minivan will do.

I fricking hate targeted ads (actually I hate all ads, but I have to pick my battles). I wish that every business that thinks it needs to track my comings and goings in an effort to trick me into parting with some of my hard-earned money would go out of business this very second. This very second. I’d rather stare at a blank screen than think some online operator is secretly sizing me up, waiting to sell me the snake oil de jour.

For one, it’s a complete waste of time, since I have never knowingly clicked on an online ad. I understand that some ads have to be there, and that’s fine. Whichever ones I can’t block with my redundant ad-blocking extensions are free to sit up there and take up some screen space. Maybe one day I’ll accidently click on one and then accidently enter my credit card details and whatnot. It’s pretty unlikely, but at least theoretically possible. And the whole ad impressions as the universal business plan is pretty theoretical anyway.

Just gather eyeballs and somehow they will magically turn into cash.

Except obviously not, because now they want to spy on us to find out what they might have a better chance of suckering us into buying.

noTracking

Newsflash: I don’t need you to tell me what I want to buy. I already know, and anything I need is a web search away.

Secondly, if I want some anonymous company to follow me around and tell me what it thinks I want, I’ll ask. Like Amazon. It knows what I buy there (not because of some stupid ad, but because I go there and buy things I want, and allow it to make recommendations to me). So it makes suggestions for me. And yes, I’ve found things I like that way- mostly books and music, which lend themselves to patterns and whatnot. I’ve found lots of good music via Pandora, which I allow to track my musical tastes and apply it against its genome. And Netflix, which doesn’t have any decent new DVD releases anymore, but used to make decent recommendations to me.

There is value added there, because I have decided I want music and videos and I allowed those services to see some of my online activity.

I understand there is lots of this stuff already in play. Gmail being a prime example, I suppose. I don’t see any ads in Gmail because I block them. I guess they’re like stars during the day- they’re up there somewhere, but I can’t see them.

I sure as hell wouldn’t let some grocer peek in my window and then offer to sell me a root beer when I walk out the door because he saw me drinking my beloved Diet A&W’s.

But all of that is just chatter. I don’t want targeted ads, because I don’t want them. Period.

Go find a better business plan. One that doesn’t coopt me as your marketing R&D department.

Another of the primary rules of communication is not to force people to consume what they know they don’t want. If you want me to buy your merchandise, then spend your money making something really good. If it’s good and I decide I need it, I’ll find you.

You won’t need to sneak up on me.

Google Voice Port: A Week Later

I ported my cell number to Google Voice a little over a week ago. Since then, I’ve been on a business trip, where I relied heavily on my various mobile connections. Here are my impressions of Google Voice, after a week as an all-in user.

The Good

The most positive development is that my non-ringing cell phone problem has been resolved. I don’t know if it resolved itself on its own, or if my numerous calls to ATT and online SOS’s to Google were answered. All I know is that my cell phone seems to ring, which is pretty important to the whole mobile experience.

Now, about the general Google Voice experience

Receiving calls works beautifully. I love getting emails and text messages when I miss a call, the way I can listen to voice mails right from Gmail, and the way voice mails are transcribed. Yes, the transcriptions of hit and miss, and occasionally hilarious, but you can almost always get the gist of the message, if not the subtleties.

The Quick Dial screen within the Google Voice iPhone app is very helpful, with your chosen list and a list of recent calls.

In sum, the inbound calling part of Google Voice is just about perfect.

The Not Quite As Good

Outbound calls are a little more kludgy. When you make an outbound call, your cell phone first dials a Google Voice number (I seem to dial out to a 313 area code a lot), and your call, showing your Google Voice number on Caller ID, is then forwarded to the number you are calling. There’s nothing about this that doesn’t work- it’s just a little weird. I wish there was a way to call your Google Voice number and then get forwarded from there.

I have noticed the occasional lag when talking over Google Voice. It’s not horrible and is not a reason to avoid the service, but it is noticeable at times.

I like the call screening feature, but I haven’t figured out a way to use it when my phone is connected via Bluetooth in my truck. I end up trying to wrestle my phone out of my pocket, so I can press 1 to accept the call before it goes to voicemail. I may have to disable call screening.

The biggest hole I have found in the Google Voice experience is the inability to click on a phone number in an email or text message and have the number dialed via Google Voice. Many of the numbers I dial are contained in emails or text messages. When you click on a number that way, it is dialed with your actual cell phone number, and not your Google Voice number. There may not be a way around this, but it is an issue if you want to keep your actual cell number secret, so people will use your Google Voice number. And even more so after you’ve ported the number that everyone knows to Google Voice.

Would I Do It Again?

So, knowing what I know now, would I still port my long-time cell number to Google Voice?

It’s sort of a tough call. I really don’t like the kludginess of making calls, particularly the inability to click on a number and dial via Google Voice. On the other hand, there is a lot to love about the all-in Google Voice experience.

I think I’d do it again. In no small part because I believe Google Voice is a work in progress that will get better and better. At some point- and I hope it’s sooner rather than later- I expect Google will become a direct carrier.

I hope so. Sign me up Google, I’m ready.