<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Goes for Browser-based Voice for iPhone</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2010/01/google-goes-for-browser-based-voice-for-iphone.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2010/01/google-goes-for-browser-based-voice-for-iphone.html</link>
	<description>Internet Marketing News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:00:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2010/01/google-goes-for-browser-based-voice-for-iphone.html/comment-page-1#comment-108412</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:39:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/?p=15637#comment-108412</guid>
		<description>Instead GV now puts up a dialog box with some unfamiliar number to connect the cellphone to and thus place the outbound call.  If that number remains constant I can live with it by putting *that* number in my list...but why didn&#039;t GV just keep the functionality the same?
 
Hopefully someone will post if:
1.  GV fixes this in the new webapp.
2.  The connecting number is a constant.
3.  There is a way to access the *old* mobile website (or that functionality from a mobile device).
 
Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Instead GV now puts up a dialog box with some unfamiliar number to connect the cellphone to and thus place the outbound call.  If that number remains constant I can live with it by putting *that* number in my list&#8230;but why didn&#8217;t GV just keep the functionality the same?</p>
<p>Hopefully someone will post if:<br />
1.  GV fixes this in the new webapp.<br />
2.  The connecting number is a constant.<br />
3.  There is a way to access the *old* mobile website (or that functionality from a mobile device).</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Carwile</title>
		<link>http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2010/01/google-goes-for-browser-based-voice-for-iphone.html/comment-page-1#comment-108376</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Carwile</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:44:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/?p=15637#comment-108376</guid>
		<description>I just tried the mobile Google Voice &quot;app.&quot; I have to admit, I&#039;m impressed. I think they may have taken recent steps to improve their call quality as well. I&#039;ll definitely use it more now than I used to.

I have the old Google Voice app installed as well - I was able to install it the day before Apple pulled it from the App store. It works well, and I have used it often, but I obviously haven&#039;t been thrilled about relying on an app that couldn&#039;t officially be supported by the developer any more.

There have been rumors that Apple will remove Google as it&#039;s primary search engine on the iPhone and use *gasp* Bing as a replacement. That is even rumored to be a temporary solution and that Apple is in the process of building its own search engine - an idea that I think is silly, but admittedly interesting to ponder.

I personally think Apple will respond by leaning on AT&amp;T to impose some form of restriction(s) on said iPhone use. I have no ideas on what they might even be able to get away with in that area, but AT&amp;T and Apple have never seemed to care too much about &quot;legal&quot; when it comes to &quot;protecting&quot; their profits. They have a back-scratching relationship. AT&amp;T leaned on Apple when Verizon slammed their 3G coverage and got them to make mentions of the network in the iPhone commercials, something Apple hadn&#039;t done before until then. AT&amp;T will be obligated to return the favor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just tried the mobile Google Voice &#8220;app.&#8221; I have to admit, I&#8217;m impressed. I think they may have taken recent steps to improve their call quality as well. I&#8217;ll definitely use it more now than I used to.</p>
<p>I have the old Google Voice app installed as well &#8211; I was able to install it the day before Apple pulled it from the App store. It works well, and I have used it often, but I obviously haven&#8217;t been thrilled about relying on an app that couldn&#8217;t officially be supported by the developer any more.</p>
<p>There have been rumors that Apple will remove Google as it&#8217;s primary search engine on the iPhone and use *gasp* Bing as a replacement. That is even rumored to be a temporary solution and that Apple is in the process of building its own search engine &#8211; an idea that I think is silly, but admittedly interesting to ponder.</p>
<p>I personally think Apple will respond by leaning on AT&amp;T to impose some form of restriction(s) on said iPhone use. I have no ideas on what they might even be able to get away with in that area, but AT&amp;T and Apple have never seemed to care too much about &#8220;legal&#8221; when it comes to &#8220;protecting&#8221; their profits. They have a back-scratching relationship. AT&amp;T leaned on Apple when Verizon slammed their 3G coverage and got them to make mentions of the network in the iPhone commercials, something Apple hadn&#8217;t done before until then. AT&amp;T will be obligated to return the favor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

