Mac) Would you say that with a Google Voice and iPod touch, you don't even need a phone?

Google Voice is free in US and Canada, has free voice mail, and you can get it for free as long as you have a Pinger app to make a phone number to register for the GV and take the confirmation call to the same number on the iPod touch.

So wouldn't this mean that you don't really need to shell out hundreds of dollars over a contract to have a phone service, since there are wifi everywhere in such places as Starbucks, Panera Bread, Whole Foods, McDonalds, Barnes & Noble, etc?

My family has iPhone 4s and I'm trying to persuade them to stop the $200 worth of phone bill per month by switching over to Google Voice. They are thinking of switching to iPhone 5 but I am trying to persuade them that they should get the iPod touch 5.

 

you can try... i use Talkatone a lot through my iPhone when on WiFi, and sometimes the quality of the call leaves MUCH to be desired.

 

there are a variety of problems that would affect most users:

1) free wifi hotspots are not everywhere. you mentioned a few retail stores, but people expect to be able to make and receive phone calls from anywhere - not just retail stores. There are many places which people go which are not retail stores and/or do not provide free wifi. You'll have to reduce your expectations concerning your ability to make and receive phone calls in various places.

2) For places which do offer free wifi - many require you to log in / accept terms. This means that you can't just walk into a Panera, for example, and start making or receiving phone calls. You have to go to the store, open safari, get access to the internet, and then you'll have to open your VOIP app (I'm pretty sure background VOIP requires you to maintain an internet connection - so it wont be active until you run the app) - and then you can start making and receiving calls. If you go to a different store or back to the Panera after your login token expires, you'll have to repeat the process.

3) It's useless in an emergency situation. You'll have to hope you can find wifi access - and even if you can, you sometimes cant use 911 with VOIP.

4) No one will be able to count on contacting if they are having an emergency situation. And, worse, people may expect to be able to contact you in an emergency if they have your phone number.

5) call quality and disconnects are often problematic with low cost or free VOIP. If you're going to pay for higher quality VOIP service, then it's probably not worth the sacrifice over a standard cell line.

6) If you're talking about an iDevice, you have to remember to run the app whenever you turn your phone on. You also don't have total control over multitasking - the operating system can decide to quit background applications if it needs the memory, including your VOIP application running in the background. This can be another source of missed calls, which reduces practicality further.

7) If you're talking about an iPod touch in particular, then the device doesn't have an earpiece. This means that you'll have to either use headphones or the speakerphone to hear the other person. Assuming private conversations (and/or not annoying other people) are important to you, you'll have to carry around headphones with you.

8) The connectivity problem also rolls over to anything that uses data. People with smartphones aren't just using them to make phone calls. So not only will you have to wait until you get to a wifi network to check your missed email, messages, and phone calls, but you're also out of luck with Maps, your web browser, and the app store, until you get to a wifi network. This can cause a variety of problems which can cost more than connectivity does.

---

Obviously, if you can put up with these things, then it's possible to ditch your cell phone and the bill that comes with it. However, it's not anywhere close to a complete replacement for even average cell phone users. I don't think there's much of a point trying to convince your family to switch to this method unless you know that they have already given consideration to the limitations of the system, accept those limitations, and still aren't switching for some other reason.

 

I think chef pointed out all the reasons why people have smartphones and why devices such as the iPod touch aren't the norm. Many people make the mistake of thinking that free wi-fi is everywhere, it isn't. Wi-fi is not available in the middle of the highway when you need to make an emergency call, it is not available on any road when you need to load up a GPS app, it is not available in many restaurants where you may need to take a phone call (restaurant, not a fast food place), it is likely not available for public use in a business/office, and there are a billion other areas where wi-fi is absent. Free wi-fi availability does not look like Verizon's 3G coverage map, it doesn't even look like Verizon's 4G LTE coverage map or even at&t's craptacular 4G LTE coverage map. Wi-fi also has a small range (~30-60ft) so, once you are able to get a connection by driving by a fast food place, it is lost in a few seconds.

All-in-all, your plan of switching only to wi-fi is full of holes and makes using an iPod touch as an actual phone rather useless. Things would be different if free wi-fi was available nationwide in the same locations as 3G data from major carriers. It isn't though, it's not even close. The whole point of carrying around a phone is to have the ability to make phone calls anywhere you are within your country. You can take that further with smartphones by sending/receiving text messages, surfing the internet, looking up directions, and then using a GPS to get you to where you need to go (such as a hospital!).

 

Even if you can't take the phone call now, they could leave a message, and you can then call them back when you are at home again.

 

And if there's an emergency and they need to get a hold of you immediately? You really haven't thought this through, haven't you?

 

quite, quite.

 

Revenge of the auto correct.

 

Could you give examples of the emergency situations?

 

Is this an act or are you really this obtuse?

 

It's not an act.

 

Your in a car wreck
You run out of gas
Your car breaks down
Someone Mugs You
You're experiencing major pain while walking/jogging or eating during your lunch break at a park

I really hope you were joking...

The iTouch will never be able to be called a cellphone unless it gets 3G/4G/LTE capabilities. Apple would be stupid to put in LTE in their iTouch though because than nobody would buy the iPhone. All you would have to do is pay for LTE (which people do so anyways on the iPhone) and you'd have a no contract, no monthly phone bill, cell-phone!

 

witnessing or experiencing any of the following constitute a small fraction of the emergency situations that you may face by the nature of existing on the earth as a human in the 21st century:

car wreck
fire
medical emergency / serious injury
serious crime
alien invasion
zombie apocalypse
doomsday device activation

 

I think the whole point of a cell phone is that you can make/receive a call when you want or need to, not when you have the time and patience to find a free wifi spot. At least where I live, I would have to go out of my way to find a wifi hotspot - that would be a major inconvenience and waste of time.

There are a range of pre-paid "dumb" phone plans that are quite inexpensive and work well. If my goal was to save money, I'd get one of those and an iPod touch. That way I could make calls when I wanted to, but emails and web stuff could wait until I have access to the net.

I think smartphone are still a "want" for a lot of people, but cell phones have very much become a "need."

 

Pre-paid Phones would be the best way, at least for now, to communicate on a budget.

 

Except that would defeat the whole purpose of just getting an iPhone to begin with. I understand that people may not always have the budget to pay a monthly bill for voice, text, and data service. However, if one is going to force the iPod touch into something it isn't (come on, you are smarter than that!) and then buy another device and spend even more money for some type of service, wouldn't it be better to just get a smartphone to begin with? It would be an all-in-one device. It wouldn't have to be a $200 iPhone either as there are $50 smartphones that would be able to meet most people's needs. There is a big difference between trying to be economical and going out of one's way to be ignorant and impractical.

 

I think that based on your budget, you should probably try and fit into one of these tiers (these are the 2 year costs):

choice #1: ~$2000-2500

iPhone 5 + expensive data plan

choice #2: ~$1250

iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S + 2nd tier service provider, like virgin mobile

choice #3: ~$300-600 (depending on how many cell minutes you use + generation of iPhone you pick

Used (maybe jailbroken if necessary, or unlocked) iPhone 4 / 4S + prepaid cell service + wifi data only

That's what I would do over an iPod touch, even on a tight budget. You could even use Google Voice to save minutes, but at least here you would still have the ability to make and receive calls via cell network, though you wouldn't be forced to (the Google Voice + apps option would still be there, usable on both cell or VOIP networks, if you only want to give out one number). And, if you need to dial 9-1-1, use the built in phone app. Simple enough. Going cheaper than this doesn't save you much money, and it certainly doesn't save you much relative to the features you're giving up.

 

Anybody who absolutely must have a smartphone at this price point would be better off with Android. Even a used 4S would consume most of that budget and the iPhone 4 is ancient at this point.

 

you may be right. I was just outlining a budget for iDevices only. Considering other options is a great idea, of course. You could even consider Android at higher pricing categories. Of course, I wouldn't write off an iOS device as a smartphone choice just because of a budget. That choice basically comes down to which device/ecosystem you want. Contract cell voice service and cell data service (contract or not) tend to be very expensive regardless of whether you use iOS or android.

---

Also, while we're on the subject, there are also non-emergency calling situations which are common, where a call back later would not be helpful. These situations generally depend on you maintaining relationships with other humans (pretty common). They class of phone conversation I'm describing revolves around short term scheduling of things which are imminent but not urgent (not emergencies).

"Can you pick up groceries from the store while you're out?"

"Would you like to meet me in an hour for lunch?"

There are a huge number of situations like this. It will be difficult to maintain working relationships with people in the 21st century if they expect to be able to contact you and they cannot. Never answering your phone is an easy way to be written off. People aren't going to make arrangements with you for if it's extremely difficult or unreliable to do so. If you'd like to have those types of arrangements, then you'll need to be able to communicate with other people.

 

I think the factoring in of total cost over the 2 year contract period is the reason that the prepaid segment is growing leaps and bounds compared to before. I am interested in getting a prepaid plan with android when my contract ends next year. I am not the one who uses 4 gb of data anyway, so it might actually work out for me.

 

The main issue with pre-paid plans, especially for people who live out west (where I am from) is that they rely on smaller networks to provide service. Sprint is pretty much the only major service the pre-paid options use. That's fine if you live in an area where Sprint has good coverage but out west, it is pretty much limited to the highways. I could never, ever, use Sprint (or even at&t for that matter) back home as coverage is only along the highway. My aunt has Sprint (she doesn't live there but visits often) and loses data coverage anytime she comes down as my Mom's house is a good 10 miles from the highway. My grandparents were gobbled up by at&t and they have EDGE data coverage but that gets lost when driving a few miles further from the highway. However, I get about 3.5Mbps 3G through Verizon when I'm down there and they are about to flip the switch on LTE in February.

The pre-paid plans are inexpensive but coverage can be lackluster. Not only that but, if you want an actual decent phone, you have to buy them unlocked from a 3rd party seller to get them up and running on the pre-paid network. It is an option but I don't really see it as being viable especially if you want to travel to areas where Sprint (I think Walmart, Virgin, and Cricket all use Sprint) coverage isn't that great. That and family plans are still less expensive on big networks for what they offer. I'm getting 4GB of LTE data, unlimited texts (I send and receive about 300 tests a month), and unlimited minutes (I make about 900 minutes worth of calls a month) across two iPhone 5's and the cost is $60 per phone per month through Verizon (government discount). It's kinda hard to find a pre-paid service like that, offering full 4G LTE coverage (I normally get around 25Mbps download in my office/lab and 40Mbps at home) for me and 3G data back home for my Mom.

 

Well now everyone doesn't get a discount, now do they? Even at $60, it is $15-20 more expensive than a prepaid.

I think that the prepaid have expanded from using just one network. Of course, you have to know which is which like virgin would use sprint only since it is a prepaid network run under a different name by sprint. I don't know about your area, but sprint is really getting pathetic here in terms of dropped calls and call quality. I went to the store and the associate told me that Sprint should be "the bomb" at the end of the year, but I guess that their towers aren't up to speed either for LTE or for regular calls (towers are being turned off to make switch to LTE). Cricket and straight talk rely on ATT from what I know and I haven't have had bad luck with tracfone that relys on att (and tmobile?) here either. I do understand that everyone's solutions might be custom tailored to their needs to where they live and where they might travel, so there is no solution for everyone.

 

There are ways to get all sorts of discounts through the major companies. Verizon offers a discount for teachers, government workers, and even students. It's the same amount but I know a large chunk of people that fit into one of those categories. Their inability to offer discounts to a select crowd shouldn't be held against them. Are people complaining that Apple essentially does the same thing? Nope. Even when the pre-paid services go through t-mobile (which is just as bad as Sprint) or at&t, they still can't reach everyone. Verizon is the only major network that can reach areas back home with ease. t-mobile, at&t, and Sprint are all awful and are either EDGE near the highways (only) or don't even offer coverage. There are many people who wouldn't benefit from a prepaid plan as they wouldn't get coverage. What's the point of spending money on a prepaid plan, even an inexpensive one, if you can't text, surf the net, or even make a phone call?

 

We shouldn't hold it against them (as in some kind of vendetta), but we should use the correct price when we are making budget choices for ourselves. If you're trying to decide whether one thing is more expensive than another, you shouldn't make a universal statement if it doesn't apply universally.

 

It's the "Nobody I know voted for Nixon" defense.

 

I never made a universal statement though, I simply stated how much a non-prepaid service was costing me through a major wireless carrier that actually has coverage back home (and is the only one to supply 3G data where I used to live, about ready to upgrade to 4G LTE). I was stating that its impossible for me to find a prepaid service that offered all of those features and coverage. I'm sure prepaid services are fine in big cities but out west (and in the southwest, where I'm from), they aren't up to snuff mainly because their parent networks (t-mobile, Sprint, at&t) are lacking whereas Verizon went in and purchased customers and towers from many of the smaller networks expanding their coverage to areas that the other major ones still cannot fully reach. Their acquisition of Alltel towers across the state of New Mexico is a prime example as at&t and Sprint had to go in and build their own.

Either way, I never made a universal statement regarding service price but rather gave a scenario (my own) where a prepaid service would not work and the extra costs (~$15 a month) were well worth it for being able to actually use my iPhone as a smartphone whenever I go back home (which is quite often) or even just to be able to drive across the U.S. and generally not worry about service (which also happens a lot).

 

You said that family plans are cheaper than equivalent prepaid plans and cited your discounted cost.

 

Yes. In my example, that is true. Did I say that "all family plans in the entire world, solar system, galaxy, and universe are less expensive than prepaid plans"? No, I said they are less expensive for what they offer (i.e. good coverage and service), I never said they were less expensive than prepaid plans. For example, I pay $60 per phone through Verizon and have 4G LTE coverage where I currently live and fully 3G service back home. A lot of prepaid plans that involve data hover around $45 a month but I wouldn't have the same coverage (or even 40Mbps 4G LTE where I currently live). That extra $15 a month really isn't that bad considering I can actually use my smartphone as a smartphone and am not limited to big cities and highways. Family plans also offer a discount over buying individual plans for members on the same account. The plan I have now would otherwise have been about $90 per phone (just with 2GB of data per line) if I went with two individual plan routes. The family share plan offered a substantial discount.

I never said that family plans are less expensive than comparable prepaid plans. I said that they are less expensive for what they offer. Show me one prepaid plan that has the same LTE coverage as Verizon (and speeds!), lets me use an iPhone 5, gives me unlimited minutes, unlimited texts, and 4GB of data for two lines and I will retract my statement. Otherwise it stands (and is) correct.

 

"Better value" might make more sense.

 

This thread was not about your specific mobile phone needs. Nor was it about the cheapest way to get an unlimited plan with fast data on Verizon. It was about how to take advantage of public WiFi and Google voice to eliminate or at least minimize the cost of cellular service. It was made clear to the OP that you need at least basic service for various reasons, e.g. emergencies. Prepaid is a viable option for that.

You've argued against prepaid by changing the requirements so they can only be met by Verizon. So your argument is more about Verizon vs. other carriers than contract vs. prepaid.

 

I sited my specific example as to how some companies and prepaid services cannot reach people, where prepaid would not be an option because of where they live. I'm sure there are people who aren't reached by Verizon yet at&t has better coverage. My main argument was, and still is, against prepaid services as many don't offer full benefits that the big carriers do. I know the purpose of this thread, you don't have to remind me of that. I was pointing out examples of how prepaid cellular services may not fulfill the OP's needs. They never specified where they are from or their possible geographic location in the U.S. What if the OP is in Montana? A prepaid service isn't going to do a lot of good there. I sited my specific example as to how Verizon was the only choice for me and that the OP might be in the same boat whether it is with the same carrier or not.