Jason Unger

Vonage's iPhone App is Pointless, Thanks Google/Apple/AT&T

Posted by junger - 10/21/09 at 07:10:21 am

Even before we got our first iPhone (Debbie's 2G), I've been talking about the major impact an app like Vonage could have on the device.

Think about it. For us Vonage users, with a mobile app, we could:

• automatically forward our landline to our cells while on the road
• get access to all of our digital voicemails and transcriptions
• see our latest inbound and outbound calls
• even make calls on our cellphone through our landline number

It'd be an amazing app. But it's not even close to the one we got. Yes, I know you can do most of these things by visiting their website, but it's slow, not mobile-friendly, and does more than an app needs to.

Instead, Vonage puts out a Skype-like mobile calling app, targeted at non-Vonage users who want to be able to make calls over WiFi (and now 3G). So you have to buy minutes to make calls. And can't do anything whatsoever related to your landline account.

It's totally pointless. Why would Vonage ignore their current users by making an app that doesn't do anything useful for them at all?

Well, there may be a legitimate excuse. But it's a total cop-out. And I doubt it's the actual reason they used to justify making this pointless app.

The ideal Vonage app sounds a lot like Google Voice. You know, the app that currently has Apple/AT&T/Google under scrutiny from the FCC. Being able to have "one number to manage them all" is great for users … not so much for telecom providers. Especially if it's not their number.

Considering they've never been an especially cash-steady company, Vonage doesn't have the ability to get caught up in a legal mess. But it's a dumb argument, since all of the app features are currently available — just in an annoying, non-usable fashion.

I don't know who to blame for this, so in a spirit of fairness, not only will Vonage take blame for being wimps, Google, Apple and AT&T also need to be called out for causing this situation.

Gmail Says Google Calendar is Phishing, Spams It

Posted by junger - 07/09/08 at 02:07:30 pm

Check out what happened to a recent Google Calendar reminder I got for an upcoming meeting:

Because Gmail thinks that these automated reminders (from calendar-notification@google.com) are phishing emails, it removes the ability to click on any of the links. This prevents you from unsubscribing to the notifications and checking out more event details.

Gmail also throws these messages into your spam folder, making it pretty useless as a reminder.

Google: left hand, meet right hand.

Should Google Pay Me to Be Listed?

Posted by junger - 05/06/08 at 12:05:48 pm

In Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox this week, he proposes an interesting next step for Microsoft, now that their bid for Yahoo! is over (emphasis is mine).

Now that Steve Ballmer has earned his bonus for the year by walking from overpaying for Yahoo, he needs to do something else with his $50B. One idea I would like him to try is to refund some of the outrageous sums harvested by search engines.

a) Give back to the websites that create the content that search engines currently scrape for free: pay sites for only being indexed in one search engine and refuse the other engines. In particular, allow access to deep link archives of value-added content for users entering from your search engine. Value proportion to users: When you search on engine X, you find stuff that's otherwise not available.

So Microsoft, Google or Yahoo should pay me to list my information? Interesting idea, but it's way too late for that.

In a "normal" capitalistic agreement, Nielsen is right — they should be paying me. I put out my information, they use it in their product, and they make money off of selling ads near my listing.

But, given where we are in our expectations with the Internet, this will never happen. Users expect to find the best information when they do an online search — not a company-filtered answer to their query.

What good is a resource if it has no good resources? Obviously, it's no good at all.

This is a similar argument for net neutrality. If your access provider can greatly affect where you get your information, your viewpoint is going to be skewed.

I highly doubt Nielsen's suggestion will happen, and if it does, the types of sites entering into an agreement will be low-profile. Would CNN really NOT want to be indexed by Google News? Would Engadget ONLY want to be indexed by AOL (which owns it)? It would be pretty stupid.

Would you accept money from a search engine for an exclusive listing?

I Pwned Google: Other Jason Ungers Be Damned

Posted by junger - 04/14/08 at 03:04:07 pm

I officially own the entire first page of Google results for jason unger.

While not every link goes to my Web site, each result is about me: my site, my LinkedIn profile, my Facebook profile, my Geek of the Week bio, etc.

Besides being pretty cool, what does that mean?

Considering that eye-tracking studies have found that Web searchers rarely (if ever) move on to the second page of results, I am essentially the only Jason Unger most Web surfers will ever find.

That's a huge brand builder. Since I make my living working online, anyone interested in finding out more about me won't get confused with any other Jason Ungers out there.

I was just talking with Dave Weinberg and Noah Wolfe this weekend about Googling yourself (also known as egosurfing) and how well you rank in the results. Until today, the only other Jason Unger on the first page was the lobbyist/lawyer who worked for GWB during Bush v. Gore.

Apparently, Google's kicked him off of the first page of results. (Don't be surprised if he shows up again; who knows how that Google juice works.)

How do you rank in Google? Take a look and let me know in the comments.

PS – It is totally cool to Google yourself. It's not egotistical or self-centered or anything like that. It's actually pretty important to know, since anyone who wants to find out information about you is doing it.

Gmail, Label:Unread and Controlling My Inbox

Posted by junger - 03/10/08 at 09:03:26 am

Why doesn't Google allow you to create an "unread" label for easy access in Gmail?

It's one of those "hidden labels" that Google uses, but doesn't allow you to actually access without typing into the search bar.

There are workarounds, but they're not ideal.

I use Gmail for everything. It's my personal email. It's my business email. It's my work email. I probably have 5 or 6 Gmail accounts.

So it actually IS a big deal that I have to type in "label:unread" into my search bar every time I need to find the emails I haven't read yet.

I understand that Google would rather have you archive your read emails and only keep unread emails in your inbox, but that's not how I manage my mail.

I read the stuff that is important, then leave the less important stuff unread to do later (I rarely check my starred items, so that doesn't help).

Come on, Google, let me create that unread shortcut. It would make life a lot easier for me.