Connect with us

Social

My experience with Google Fi on an iPhone isn’t off to a good start

Published

on

When Google announced that Project Fi was becoming Google Fi, along with the addition of official iPhone support, I was intrigued.

I had used Project Fi in the past, pausing and resuming service when I needed a second line. The flexibility of Google’s service was something I appreciated and took full advantage of.

Getting the Google Fi SIM card

When the news broke, I ordered a SIM card, in anticipation of using it in an iPhone XR. The next day, I received a tracking number that showed the SIM was due for delivery a couple of days later.

Then, the tracking number quit updating, and after another day or two, it became apparent FedEx lost the package. I used Google Fi’s chat support feature to see what my options were. After being told I would have a SIM card overnighted to me, I was then told I would have to pay $16 for expedited shipping. The lost delivery wasn’t Google’s fault, nor mine, but I wasn’t going to pay for expedited shipping; it wasn’t even my idea to have it shipped overnight.

Also: Apple’s iPhone XR isn’t selling? I went to Best Buy to find out

The customer service representative eventually told me I would have to open a support ticket in order to have the company attempt to track down the package with FedEx. I agreed to have the ticket opened, and I waited to hear back from Google. A few days later, on a Saturday, I heard back from support. The package was lost and couldn’t be recovered, and I would need to order another SIM card.

I asked if the offer to have a card overnighted for free was still available. The representative offered to apply a credit for the shipping fee to my Google Fi account after I activate service, which is a fair trade off, so I ordered the card and it showed up on Tuesday, nearly three weeks after I placed the original order.


(Image: Jason Cipriani/ZDNet)

Setting up Google Fi

I installed the Google Fi iOS app, signed into my Google account, and followed the prompts. Setting up Google Fi on the iPhone takes a little bit of work, because you have to enter the APN settings for Google Fi service. That process took only a couple of minutes, partly because I’m comfortable with such a task, and because Google’s instructions are easy to follow.

After restarting the iPhone XR, I received two text messages from Google Fi, providing me with my Google Fi phone number and welcoming me to the service.

A few minutes later, I attempted to send myself a picture and a text message. The text message appeared within a few seconds on my main phone number, but the picture message never arrived. I restarted the iPhone again and attempted to send another picture message. This time, my iPhone received a message, but it wasn’t the picture message. Instead, it was a block of text that reads:

“One or more of the message components have been deleted by MMS Adaptation. Either the message was too large or the components were unsuitable for your handset.”

Troubleshooting Google Fi

What? I still don’t fully understand what that message is saying, and subsequent searches have resulted in more confusion, including suggestions that include completely resetting my personal phone and setting it up as brand new, which I’m not going to do, because it’s not an issue related to the phone I’m actually using to receive the message.

I sent a picture message to my Google Fi phone, and that worked as expected. A text message went through without issue as well. Adding to the confusion, I can send a picture message to a Pixel 3 XL, and it works, but only about half the time.

Also: Goodbye iPhone XR: Signal strength and size bring me back

google-fi-messaging-issues.jpg

(Screenshot: Jason Cipriani/ZDNet)

Google Fi support — or lack thereof

I decided to chat with Google Fi support and see if perhaps something is amiss on the backend and to verify the APN settings I had entered during the setup process. I opened the Google Fi app, selected the support tab, and tapped on Chat. I entered a brief description of my issue and tapped submit.

There were 247 people in the queue ahead of me, and it took over an hour before I received a message from my support agent. After messaging back and forth, I was told to make sure my Google Fi phone wasn’t connected to Wi-Fi when I want to send a picture message and to delete the Google Fi app, restart the phone, reinstall the app, and then go through the setup process again.

After doing all of that, I still can’t send picture messages to my personal iPhone. My wife’s iPhone displays the same message.

A while later, I received an email from the chat support representative, letting me know there is a messaging outage, which could be the reason I’m having issues, and that everything should be back to normal soon. As of this writing, my picture messaging isn’t working as it should, and I don’t know when it will.

Google Fi’s biggest weakness

Look, I get that there are often hiccups and issues when activating new service. I’ve sold many phones and dealt with numerous activation issues in my career. It happens!

But my experience thus far shows the biggest weakness of any wireless carrier that attempts to forgo retail locations and uses a direct-to-consumer approach instead: Customer service.


Must read


It took almost three weeks for me to get a SIM card due to a lost shipment. If I was waiting on, say, an AT&T SIM card, a 10-minute drive is all I would have needed to make.

When trying to troubleshoot my messaging woes, the chat process was cumbersome, with long pauses between me providing information and getting a reply from the representative. It was a two-and-a-half hour process from the time I first submitted my support chat request until I disconnected and deleted the app.

Google will, hopefully, get the messaging outage sorted and everything working as it should. But I don’t need this phone number. I signed up for service in order to test and share my experience, and right now, I can’t help but wonder how much patience someone (who is trying to save some money) would need to switch to Google Fi.

Previous and related coverage:

Google’s Project Fi 4G is now available on most Android devices and iPhone

Google is also changing its 4G data and telephony service name from Project Fi to Google Fi.

Google’s Project Fi adds three new phones to its lineup

The new phones span the low-end and high-end.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social

Snap to launch a new Creator Marketplace this month, initially focused on Lens Creators – TechCrunch

Published

on

Snap on Wednesday announced its plan to soon launch a Creator Marketplace, which will make it easier for businesses to find and partner with Snapchat creators, including lens creators, AR creators and later, prominent Snapchat creators known as Snap Stars. At launch, the marketplace will focus on connecting brands and AR creators for AR ads. It will then expand to support all Snap Creators by 2022.

The company had previously helped connect its creator community with advertisers through its Snapchat Storytellers program, which first launched into pilot testing in 2018 — already a late arrival to the space. However, that program’s focus was similar to Facebook’s Brand Collabs Manager, as it focused on helping businesses find Snap creators who could produce video content.

Snap’s new marketplace, meanwhile, has a broader focus in terms of connecting all sorts of creators with the Snap advertising ecosystem. This includes Lens Creators, Developers and Partners, and then later, Snap’s popular creators with public profiles.

Snap says the Creator Marketplace will open to businesses later this month to help them partner with a select group of AR Creators in Snap’s Lens Network. These creators can help businesses build AR experiences without the need for extensive creative resources, which makes access to Snap’s AR ads more accessible to businesses, including smaller businesses without in-house developer talent.

Lens creators have already found opportunity working for businesses that want to grow their Snapchat presence — even allowing some creators to quit their day jobs and just build lens for a living. Snap has been further investing in this area of its business, having announced in December a $3.5 million fund directed towards AR Lens creation. The company said at the time there were tens of thousands of Lens creators who had collectively made over 1.5 million Lenses to date.

Using Lenses has grown more popular, too, the company had noted, saying that over 180 million people interact with a Snapchat Lens every day — up from 70 million daily active users of Lenses when the Lens Explorer section first launched in the app in 2018.

Now, Snap says that over 200 million Snapchat users interact with augmented reality on a daily basis, on average, out of its 280 million daily users. The majority (over 90%) of these users are 13-25 year olds. In total, users are posting over 5 billion Snaps per day.

Snap says the Creator Marketplace will remain focused on connecting businesses with AR Lens Creators throughout 2021.

The following year, it will expand to include the community of professional creators and storytellers who understand the current trends and interests of the Snap user base and can help businesses with their ad campaigns. The company will not take a cut of the deals facilitated through the Marketplace, it says.

This would include the creators making content for Snap’s new TikTok rival, Spotlight, which launched in November 2020. Snap encouraged adoption of the feature by shelling out $1 million per day to creators of top videos. In March 2021, over 125 million Snapchat users watched Spotlight, it says.

Image Credits: Snapchat

Spotlight isn’t the only way Snap is challenging TikTok.

The company also on Wednesday announced it’s snagging two of TikTok’s biggest stars for its upcoming Snap Originals lineup: Charli and Dixie D’Amelio. The siblings, who have gained over 20 million follows on Snapchat this past year, will star in the series “Charli vs. Dixie.” Other new Originals will feature names like artist Megan Thee Stallion, actor Ryan Reynolds, twins and influencers Niki and Gabi DeMartino, and YouTube beauty vlogger Manny Mua, among others.

Snap’s shows were watched by over 400 million people in 2020, including 93% of the Gen Z population in the U.S., it noted.

 

 

Continue Reading

Social

Twitter rolls out bigger images and cropping control on iOS and Android – TechCrunch

Published

on

Twitter just made a change to the way it displays images that has visual artists on the social network celebrating.

In March, Twitter rolled out a limited test of uncropped, larger images in users’ feeds. Now, it’s declared those tests a success and improved the image sharing experience for everybody.

On Twitter for Android or iOS, standard aspect ratio images (16:9 and 4:3) will now display in full without any cropping. Instead of gambling on how an image will show up in the timeline — and potentially ruining an otherwise great joke — images will look just like they did when you shot them.

Twitter’s new system will show anyone sharing an image a preview of what it will look like before it goes live in the timeline, resolving past concerns that Twitter’s algorithmic cropping was biased toward highlighting white faces.

“Today’s launch is a direct result of the feedback people shared with us last year that the way our algorithm cropped images wasn’t equitable,” Twitter spokesperson Lauren Alexander said. The new way of presenting images decreases the platform’s reliance on automatic, machine learning-based image cropping.

Super tall or wide images will still get a centered crop, but Twitter says it’s working to make that better too, along with other aspects of how visual media gets displayed in the timeline.

For visual artists like photographers and cartoonists who promote their work on Twitter, this is actually a pretty big deal. Not only will photos and other kinds of art score more real estate on the timeline, but artists can be sure that they’re putting their best tweet forward without awkward crops messing stuff up.

Twitter’s Chief Design Officer Dantley Davis celebrated by tweeting a requisite dramatic image of the Utah desert (Dead Horse Point — great spot!)

We regret to inform you that the brands are also aware of the changes.

The days of “open for a surprise” tweets might be numbered, but the long duck can finally have his day.

Continue Reading

Social

Facebook’s Oversight Board throws the company a Trump-shaped curveball – TechCrunch

Published

on

Facebook’s controversial policy-setting supergroup issued its verdict on Trump’s fate Wednesday, and it wasn’t quite what most of us were expecting.

We’ll dig into the decision to tease out what it really means, not just for Trump, but also for Facebook’s broader experiment in outsourcing difficult content moderation decisions and for just how independent the board really is.

What did the Facebook Oversight Board decide?

The Oversight Board backed Facebook’s determination that Trump violated its policies on “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations,” which prohibits anything that praises or otherwise supports violence. The the full decision and accompanying policy recommendations are online for anyone to read.

Specifically, the Oversight Board ruled that two Trump posts, one telling Capitol rioters “We love you. You’re very special” and another calling them “great patriots” and telling them to “remember this day forever” broke Facebook’s rules. In fact, the board went as far as saying the pair of posts “severely” violated the rules in question, making it clear that the risk of real-world harm in Trump’s words was was crystal clear:

The Board found that, in maintaining an unfounded narrative of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr. Trump created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible. At the time of Mr. Trump’s posts, there was a clear, immediate risk of harm and his words of support for those involved in the riots legitimized their violent actions. As president, Mr. Trump had a high level of influence. The reach of his posts was large, with 35 million followers on Facebook and 24 million on Instagram.”

While the Oversight Board praised Facebook’s decision to suspend Trump, it disagreed with the way the platform implemented the suspension. The group argued that Facebook’s decision to issue an “indefinite” suspension was an arbitrary punishment that wasn’t really supported by the company’s stated policies:

It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored.

In applying this penalty, Facebook did not follow a clear, published procedure. ‘Indefinite’ suspensions are not described in the company’s content policies. Facebook’s normal penalties include removing the violating content, imposing a time-bound period of suspension, or permanently disabling the page and account.”

The Oversight Board didn’t mince words on this point, going on to say that by putting a “vague, standardless” punishment in place and then kicking the ultimate decision to the Oversight Board, “Facebook seeks to avoid its responsibilities.” Turning things around, the board asserted that it’s actually Facebook’s responsibility to come up with an appropriate penalty for Trump that fits its set of content moderation rules.

 

Is this a surprise outcome?

If you’d asked me yesterday, I would have said that the Oversight Board was more likely to overturn Facebook’s Trump decision. I also called Wednesday’s big decision a win-win for Facebook, because whatever the outcome, it wouldn’t ultimately be criticized a second time for either letting Trump back onto the platform or kicking him off for good. So much for that!

A lot of us didn’t see the “straight up toss the ball back into Facebook’s court” option as a possible outcome. It’s ironic and surprising that the Oversight Board’s decision to give Facebook the final say actually makes the board look more independent, not less.

Facebook likely saw a more clear-cut decision on the Trump situation in the cards. This is a challenging outcome for a company that’s probably ready to move on from its (many, many) missteps during the Trump era. But there’s definitely an argument that if the board declared that Facebook made the wrong call and reinstated Trump that would have been a much bigger headache.

What does it mean that the Oversight Board sent the decision back to Facebook?

Ultimately the Oversight Board is asking Facebook to either a) give Trump’s suspension and end date or b) delete his account. In a less severe case, the normal course of action would be for Facebook to remove whatever broke the rules, but given the ramifications here and the fact that Trump is a repeat Facebook rule-breaker, this is obviously all well past that option.

What will Facebook do?

We’re in for a wait. The board called for Facebook to evaluate the Trump situation and reach a final decision within six months, calling for a “proportionate” response that is justified by its platform rules. Since Facebook and other social media companies are re-writing their rules all the time and making big calls on the fly, that gives the company a bit of time to build out policies that align with the actions it plans to take. See you again on November 5.

In the months following the violence at the U.S. Capitol, Facebook repeatedly defended its Trump call as “necessary and right.” It’s hard to imagine the company deciding that Trump will get reinstated six months from now, but in theory Facebook could decide that length of time was an appropriate punishment and write that into its rules. The fact that Twitter permanently banned Trump means that Facebook could comfortably follow suit at this point.

If Trump had won reelection, this whole thing probably would have gone down very differently. As much as Facebook likes to say its decisions are aligned with lofty ideals — absolute free speech, connecting people — the company is ultimately very attuned to its regulatory and political environment. Trump’s actions were on January 6 were dangerous and flagrant, but Biden’s looming inauguration two weeks later probably influenced the company’s decision just as much.

In direct response to the decision, Facebook’s Nick Clegg wrote only: “We will now consider the board’s decision and determine an action that is clear and proportionate.” Clegg says Trump will stay suspended until then but didn’t offer further hints at what comes next.

Did the board actually change anything?

Potentially. In its decision, the Oversight Board said that Facebook asked for “observations or recommendations from the Board about suspensions when the user is a political leader.” The board’s policy recommendations aren’t binding like its decisions are, but since Facebook asked, it’s likely to listen.

If it does, the Oversight Board’s recommendations could reshape how Facebook handles high profile accounts in the future:

The Board stated that it is not always useful to draw a firm distinction between political leaders and other influential users, recognizing that other users with large audiences can also contribute to serious risks of harm.

While the same rules should apply to all users, context matters when assessing the probability and imminence of harm. When posts by influential users pose a high probability of imminent harm, Facebook should act quickly to enforce its rules. Although Facebook explained that it did not apply its ‘newsworthiness’ allowance in this case, the Board called on Facebook to address widespread confusion about how decisions relating to influential users are made. The Board stressed that considerations of newsworthiness should not take priority when urgent action is needed to prevent significant harm.

Facebook and other social networks have hidden behind newsworthiness exemptions for years instead of making difficult policy calls that would upset half their users. Here, the board not only says that political leaders don’t really deserve special consideration while enforcing the rules, but that it’s much more important to take down content that could cause harm than it is to keep it online because it’s newsworthy.

So… we’re back to square one?

Yes and no. Trump’s suspension may still be up in the air, but the Oversight Board is modeled after a legal body and its real power is in setting precedents. The board kicked this case back to Facebook because the company picked a punishment for Trump that wasn’t even on the menu, not because it thought anything about his behavior fell in a gray area.

The Oversight Board clearly believed that Trump’s words of praise for rioters at the Capitol created a high stakes, dangerous threat on the platform. It’s easy to imagine the board reaching the same conclusion on Trump’s infamous “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” statement during the George Floyd protests, even though Facebook did nothing at the time. Still, the board stops short of saying that behavior like Trump’s merits a perma-ban — that much is up to Facebook.

Continue Reading

Trending