dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
6
cell14
join:2012-01-04
Miami Beach, FL

cell14 to nitzan

Member

to nitzan

Re: [General] Google voice going paid?

said by nitzan:

said by Arne Bolen:

and it's likely Google Voice will continue the current free service at least a few more years.

I sure hope not. Google Voice is bad for VOIP because it is not economical- it essentially takes away customers from economical providers making it harder for them to survive long-term. It distorts the market - maybe even enough to kill a few providers - only for Google to arbitrarily shut it down or start charging later. As a user I guess it seems like a good thing, but when you look at the big picture it's just hurting the industry.

Think about it like this: lets say some big corp decided to start handing out free eggs at supermarkets. Within months/years all normal companies/farmers would stop producing eggs because they can't sell them. Then big-corp can either start charging and be the only egg manufacturer on the market, or worse- they could just shut down operations so no eggs for anybody. Point is- variety in an industry is good, so artificial forces that prevent variety are bad.

Edit: of course I'm biased. I've heard the "I bought an Obi and going to use GV only from now on" from a lot of customers before, but that's exactly the point. There's also, perhaps more evil aspect to consider here: the harder it gets for providers to recruit and retain customers - the more they're going to spend on advertising. And guess who gains the most from that...

I hear you. But honestly, small VOIP carriers can do a lot to offset the GV impact and unfortunately, they often do not do that.
GV is a perfect replacement for Ooma, Magic jack or Nettalk . It does not replace a full featured VOIP service. I do not see a small business owner cancelling his Callcentric service and switching everything to Google voice. But look at certain things : Example, Anveo web site. Designed to turn off the customer. Or some other companies not to be named who only take minimum payments of 15.- or even 25(!) dollars!( I am not talking about semi-wholesalers like Voxbeam) They have to offer features AND perfection AND customer service, GV is really short on those things. Go and cater more to budget customers. And last not least, operate truly globally! If you do, GV will have only a limited impact on you. I am a very happy customer of Localphone in spite of free Google Voice.
nitzan
Premium Member
join:2008-02-27

nitzan

Premium Member

said by cell14:

I do not see a small business owner cancelling his Callcentric service and switching everything to Google voice.

Actually I'm pretty sure GV has plenty of business customers. Whether that's a good idea or not (it's not) is a different argument.

Or some other companies not to be named who only take minimum payments of 15.- or even 25(!) dollars!

This is actually by design, for a couple of reasons:
1. The transaction fee on a $1 payment is 30%. For a $5 payment it's 9%. a $15 payment it's 5%. a $25 payment it's 4%. If a provider allowed you to make $1 payments they'd have to jack up their prices 30% to make up for it. If you take a close look you'll see providers offering lower payment options also tend to be more expensive.
2. No offense to small-time users, but $15 is not a lot. I'd expect a typical user to go through that in a couple of months. In a way by offering a higher minimum payment you can prevent infrequent users from signing up. A while ago I had a problem with a user because he used about $1 of calls in 2 months, and opened around 16 support cases during the same time. You can't handle users like that and remain profitable.
PX Eliezer704
Premium Member
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River

PX Eliezer704 to cell14

Premium Member

to cell14
You raise some excellent points, but I agree with Nitzan on the minimum payments issue.

Having a merchant agreement with a credit card company myself, I know that the fees are absolutely ridiculous.

Even huge businesses complain bitterly about the CC fees they have to fork over, even though they get better deals than the smaller merchants. It's murder for the smaller guys.
cell14
join:2012-01-04
Miami Beach, FL

cell14

Member

said by PX Eliezer704:

Having a merchant agreement with a credit card company myself, I know that the fees are absolutely ridiculous.

Agreed. It's time for a new payment system which keeps the convenience and SECURITY of a CC payment.
BTW, number of people incl. myself signed up with Localphone BECAUSE they offered a 1$ payments, I would not have paid $ 25.- up front. There is a huge difference between pre paid and post paid. So that certainly works well for them.
Now I indeed pay in 5 or 10 $ increments and I would even pay more I just do not want to loose more money to possible SIP scammers/scanners. They do not take AMEX though, which I hate but understand.
One way around this issue would be charging transaction surcharges for established customers who choose very small payments.
nitzan
Premium Member
join:2008-02-27

nitzan

Premium Member

said by cell14:

One way around this issue would be charging transaction surcharges for established customers who choose very small payments.

And then you'd have customers up in arms and complaining to visa/mastercard/paypal about you passing on the transaction fee to them (something you can't do according to most merchant agreements). We have some vendors who charge transaction fees and to be honest I don't like it - I understand it, but still don't like it anyway because I feel like they're advertising one price and charging another. Not something I'd want to put my users through.

Trev
AcroVoice & DryVoIP Official Rep
Premium Member
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC

Trev

Premium Member

said by nitzan:

And then you'd have customers up in arms and complaining to visa/mastercard/paypal about you passing on the transaction fee to them (something you can't do according to most merchant agreements). We have some vendors who charge transaction fees and to be honest I don't like it - I understand it, but still don't like it anyway because I feel like they're advertising one price and charging another. Not something I'd want to put my users through.

Indeed I have the same problem with some vendors and also despise the practice. If you want to charge 3% for taking my payment, just make the pricing 3% higher and don't charge that fee.

Especially when the processing fee applies equally to credit, PayPal, and direct deposit / wire transfers.