Archive for the ‘Reviews’ Category

FileMaker Goes to 11

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

You’d think there’d be a huge audience for powerful, easy-to-use database programs–especially ones that run on both Windows PCs and Macs. But FileMaker Pro, from Apple’s FileMaker, Inc. subsidiary, has long had the market pretty much to itself. Which is fine, because it’s a terrific program.

On Tuesday the company announced FileMaker Pro 11, an upgrade whose major new features are so logical that I was startled in some cases to realize that the software didn’t already have them:

  • FileMaker now has a built-in charting engine that lets you create slick-looking bar, line, area, and pie charts based on information from your database, then embed them in records. It’s pretty easy to use; I’d like it even better if it gave you a what-you-see-is-what-you-get preview with real data as you tweak your chart.
  • The program’s spreadsheet-like Table View has been beefed up a lot: It’s now easy to group records for reporting purposes, hide fields, and add fields and data without switching views.
  • A jumbo-sized, floating Inspector palette lets you click on an item in Layout Mode to see all the aspects you can control, such as position and alignment.
  • The Quick Find search field in the upper right-hand corner–similar to OS X’s Spotlight and the search in iTunes–lets you quickly do searches in the current layout.
  • You can now organize layouts into folders.
  • By using Recurring Import, you can set up a database to automatically import an external file such as an Excel worksheet every time you open the database. It’s handy if you use FileMaker to navigate your way around data created and update in another application. You can’t, however, make changes to records and then save them back into the original file, making the feature useful for viewing of external information but not editing.
  • Snapshot Link lets you capture a query result, then share it with other Filemaker users as a static lists of records that shows what you got at a particular point in time.

As before, FileMaker packs lots of power into a user interface that’s much friendlier than Microsoft’s still-gnarly Access 2007. Starter Solutions” provide templates for a variety of applications, from businessy ones (asset management) to personal productivity (a task list) to the purely personal (a database for organizing your music). Bento’s approachable enough to make it a good choice for serious home users as well as corporate types, but I wish that the company would bring its even more approachable (and much cheaper) Mac database Bento to Windows users. (It wouldn’t be a cakewalk, since the Mac version ties itself heavily into Mac-specific stuff like iPhoto’s photo library–but I don’t know of any Windows apps that are even Bento-esque.)

FileMaker Pro 11 is $299 for the full version or $179 as an upgrade; FileMaker Pro 11 Advanced, which adds more features aimed at professional database developers, is $499 or $299 as an upgrade. It’s available now, and there are free trial versions at the FileMaker site. A few screens after the jump.



Opera 10.50 Beta Comes to the Mac

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

Opera has released a Mac version of Opera 10.50, whose Windows version impressed me when it came out a couple of weeks ago. Like that version, it uses Opera’s new JavaScript engine, which Opera says is eight times faster than its predecessor.

How does it perform? Well, Seth Weintraub of Computerworld and 9 to 5 Mac used the SunSpider test to put it through its paces, and found that it beat Safari and Chrome, the fastest OS X browsers in terms of JavaScript.

Zippy JavaScript performance doesn’t automatically translate into a browser that feels zippy. Judging from the time I’ve spent with Opera 10.50 today, though, it does indeed feel like an unusually fast browser in ways that earlier versions of Opera didn’t. (It also feels like a beta–it crashed on me while I was posting this articles–and so I’d suggest trying it as a complement to your main browser rather than a substitute.)

One of the things I like about the the Windows version is its Chromelike minimalist interface, which compresses all of Opera’s options into a single menu. Like Chrome, Opera isn’t so sleek on OS X–it’s got eight menus, plus the Apple menu and the Opera one. That’s at least in part because one of the most fundamental differences between the Windows and Mac interfaces is that OS X has a fixed menu bar at the top. If you start to remove menus from it, it doesn’t conserve space and leaves the bar looking a little naked.

Google Analytics tells me that 98.5 percent of Technologizer community members aren’t using Opera. On both OS X and Windows, I’m excited about 10.50’s potential to be the first version of Opera in a long while that tempts users of other browsers to switch allegiences.


The Buzz on Google Buzz

Sunday, February 21st, 2010

(Here’s another column I wrote for FoxNews.com. This one attempts to explain Google Buzz’s pros and cons to non-geeks.)

From Facebook to MySpace to Twitter to LinkedIn and beyond, the Web circa early 2010 is a surging sea of social networks. The last thing it needs is yet another one to discover, join, and use. Especially since any social network is only interesting if the people you care about are also active members.

But what if someone took the Internet’s original social network — the pals, family members, coworkers and acquaintances in your e-mail address book — and turned it into a Twitterlike way to quickly share your whereabouts, thoughts, links, photos, and more, either publicly or privately?

Enter Google Buzz, which the Web behemoth rolled out last week. Rather than starting out as an all-new service, Buzz is debuting as a feature inside Gmail, making it instantly available to tens of millions of people. Gmail users get a link right under their inbox, letting them post to Buzz and peruse others’ activity right from within Gmail’s familiar environs. Interacting with people you’re already in touch with via e-mail is especially easy.

It’s a powerful idea. In fact, as Google discovered when Buzz came under instant attack as a threat to Gmail users’ privacy, it might be too powerful.

What’s good about Buzz is downright terrific. Unlike Twitter, it imposes no 140-character limit to get in the way of expressing yourself. Like Facebook’s Wall, if you paste a link to another Web site into a post, Buzz adds a summary to your post, complete with images. The photo-sharing feature, which works with images you upload directly into Buzz as well as Flickr and Picasa albums, is stupendously slick and simple. And you can make any post public or restrict it to a group of people you specify — “Family Members,” say, or “College Buddies.”
Buzz is also available on wireless phones: Apple’s iPhone and models that uses Google’s Android software at first, with more to come. This mobile version, which resembles services such as Foursquare and Gowalla, uses your phone’s GPS and Google Maps’ mammoth database of local businesses to figure out where you are. That makes it a snap to share opinions about restaurants, stores, and other establishments.

Here’s where things got controversial. Google thought it would do new Buzz users a favor by helping them find other Buzz users to follow, so the service would be instantly useful. It did so by automatically making newbies followers of the people they contacted most via Gmail and the Google Talk chat service.

Handy, right? Sure — but in Buzz, your list of followers is public unless you choose to conceal it, or don’t create a public Google Profile at all. That wasn’t entirely clear. And Google didn’t anticipate that some people might be sensitive about a list of their closest Gmail confidantes being openly available. The most striking real-world example: One blogger with an abusive ex-husband realized that her former spouse could use Buzz to identify who she was in contact with.

In many cases, however, having information about your Gmail activity become public was no big whoop. My only gripe about the initial list that Buzz created for me was that it wasn’t very relevant: It consisted mostly of business contacts who I had no particular desire to keep tabs on. Oh, and my mom. If she so much as touches Buzz, I’ll eat my keyboard.

The alarm over Buzz’s autofollowing feature seemed to take Google by surprise. (It had tested the new service mostly by using it internally, not by letting a small group of Gmail users try it out.) To its credit, the company moved swiftly. Two days after it unveiled Buzz, it tweaked it to make it easier to hide the list of people you were following. It also permitted users to block any person from following their activity on Buzz.

When that didn’t calm everyone down, Google went further by terminating the autofollowing process altogether. Instead, it now suggests people from your Gmail contact list: You can follow all of them, none of them, or pick and choose. The company also patched up some other potential privacy leaks, such as Buzz’s auto-publishing of users’ Picasa and Google Reader activity. (It had only been publishing items that were themselves public, but it turned out that some folks didn’t like Buzz connecting the dots between multiple Google Services.)

Even without any security leaks, Buzz feels like a rough draft. When an old post gets new comments, it rises to the top of your list — which sounds logical, but leaves you reading popular posts over and over. It uses a yellow stripe to highlight new comments, but it’s so subtle that it’s easy to miss. The service also puts Buzz discussions it thinks you’ll want to read directly in your Gmail inbox, but gives them cryptic subject lines. Bottom line: It’s often tougher to find interesting stuff than it should be.

And although you can tell Buzz to automatically grab and republish your 140-character Twitter tidbits, it does so at an amazingly sluggish pace. One item I posted on Twitter took nine hours to make its way over.

Like I say, though, there’s much that’s already nifty about Buzz. I hope that its bumpy start doesn’t permanently damage its reputation, and that Google continues to refine it at the same rapid clip it’s established so far. I’m having fun Buzzing at www.google.com/profiles/harrymccracken — stop by and say hi if you’re so inclined.

Outlook Gets LinkedIn (and I Get Frustrated)

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

Last November, Microsoft announced an add-on for Outlook called the Social Connector. At first, it only worked with new social networking features in the company’s SharePoint 2010 intranet platform. On Tuesday, it got interesting even for Outlook users who aren’t on SharePoint, as Microsoft and LinkedIn announced LinkedIn for Outlook, which uses the Social Connector to weave together the Outlook and LinkedIn experiences. (Microsoft says that similar features for Facebook and MySpace are on their way.)

LinkedIn for Outlook brings everyone you’re connected to on LinkedIn into Outlook in the form of a contact list that auto-updates itself as folks change their information on LinkedIn. Outlook’s new People Pane lets you view info about people (and their LinkedIn photo) as you view e-mail from them. It’s all very handy, and it instantly increases the value of LinkedIn (a service I’ve belonged to for years without benefitting much). It’s especially nifty when you don’t know a LinkedIn contact very well and could use a refresher on just who he or she is.

LinkedIn for Outlook and the whole idea of bringing social-network contacts into Outlook are promising, but getting the beta version to work is weirdly and needlessly complex. Some people who installed it–such as my friend Sam Diaz–found that Outlook crashed after installing LinkedIn. By the time I tried this evening, Microsoft had updated its blog post, explaining that users of the beta version of Outlook 2010 needed to uninstall the version of the Social Connector that came with the Office 2010 beta and install a new update before installing LinkedIn.  (The Social Connector and LinkedIn also work in Office 2003 and Office 2007.)

The download page at LinkedIn’s site still doesn’t mention this gotcha. In fact, it seems to say that Office 2010 users don’t need the Social Connector at all. And both the LinkedIn download page and the installation program are vague about exactly how to use LinkedIn once it’s installed within Outlook. A quick tutorial would help a lot.

Come to think of it, I’m foggy on why Outlook users need to worry about a separate piece of software called the Social Connector at all, and why the LinkedIn functionality can’t be added from within Outlook itself. Of course, Outlook, the Social Connector, and LinkedIn for Outlook are all still in beta. Maybe by the time Office 2010 ships this summer, all of this will be a lot closer to seamless.

Five Sites Beyond Google

Sunday, February 14th, 2010

[NOTE: Here’s another story I wrote for FoxNews.com. This one’s on cool ways to find information that go beyond Google, and mentions Aardvark.I wrote it last Monday and it was was published on Tuesday–and on Thursday, TechCrunch broke the news that Google was buying Aardvark.)

How much do I love Google? Thanks to the stats provided by Google Web History, it’s easy to quantify: Over the past four and a half years, I’ve Googled for information 43,295 times. That works out to about one search per hour, 24/7/365. If that doesn’t indicate passion for the world’s most popular search engine, I don’t know what does.

But I’d never argue that Google is always the fastest, most effective way to find facts, seek advice, take actions, or simply satisfy your curiosity about the world around you. Actually, there are more viable Google alternatives than ever. For the most part, they don’t compete by trying to out-Google Google at basic Web searching. Instead, they do useful things that Google doesn’t.

I’m nowhere near as dependent on any of these five free services as I am on Google — but I use and recommend them all.

When Microsoft relaunched its blah Windows Live search engine as Bing last year, it didn’t just give it a different name and a fresh coat of paint. The new version is Google’s most formidable competitor for general-purpose Web searching, with numerous nice touches — for instance, you get playable previews of videos right in search results.

Microsoft smartly chose to put extra effort into a few key areas, such as its travel section, which is uncannily similar to the excellent Kayak.com. You can enter dates and locations for plane tickets or hotel stays, then get a grid of results that you can further refine — to direct flights only, for instance, or to hotels with swimming pools. It’ll even tell you whether you’re likely to save money if you postpone making a reservation a while longer.

Aardvark is a free service (located at Vark.com) whose members serve as a panel of experts on an array of topics. You can ask questions via e-mail or your favorite instant-messaging service; Aardvark relays them to people who it thinks may know about the subject, then collects their answers and delivers them back to you.

It works well when you’d rather get quick advice from a few real knowledgeable people than scour Google results for relevant links on a question such as “Should I buy a mountain bike, a road bike, or a hybrid to ride around San Francisco?” When you belong to Aardvark, it gives you the chance to play expert too, by sending you questions from other users on matters you’re interested in.

Wolfram|Alpha calls itself a “computational knowledge engine,” but I think of it as a 21st-century equivalent of a thick, fact-packed paperback almanac. It’s a vast repository of knowledge skewing towards the mathematical and scientific that you can explore by entering questions.

For purely factual, objective, simple questions such as “What’s the wind chill in Barcelona?,” “How old was Theodore Roosevelt when he died?,” and “What was the population of the U.S. in 1970?,” there’s nothing better. It also knows the calories in a Big Mac (805). And it’ll even tell me the chances that I’ll win California’s MegaMillions lottery if I enter (1 in 175,711,536).

If you already use Twitter, you know that one of the best things about theridiculously trendy social network site is the bevy of links that members share to news stories and other interesting stuff. But you don’t need to be a Twitter maniac to use it to find worthwhile links on timely topics. In fact, you don’t even need to have a Twitter account.

You’ll find a Google-like search engine at search.twitter.com that returns 140-character “tweets” from Twitter members, often containing links to articles around the Web. (I used it Monday morning to find interesting tidbits relating to Sunday’s Super Bowl commercials.) It’s a good way to dip your toe into the Twitter stream without getting overwhelmed or making a commitment.

Siri, which debuted last week, is surely the first iPhone app that’s the commercialized result of a multimillion-dollar Defense Department research project. It’s a “virtual personal assistant” that uses voice recognition, your GPS location, and links to local information and services to respond to requests you speak into an iPhone 3GS.

You can ask Siri to call you a taxi, or to reserve a table at the best nearby sushi joint, or to tell you who’s playing at a local concert venue. The voice-recognition part works just about perfectly. And it all feels like a sneak preview of how we’ll get and use information in the future, even though I’m occasionally disappointed by the results (Siri occasionally recommends local businesses based on skimpy data.)

Got any other Google alternatives that you find essential? Leave a comment and let us know about them

Quickoffice’s Cloudier Approach to iPhone Office Suites

Friday, February 12th, 2010

Quickoffice–which was the first office suite for the iPhone–is now the first with a very cool feature: built-in support for Google Docs. It’s part of Quickoffice Connect Mobile Suite 3.0, which was announced this week at Macworld 2010.

The new version lets you open word-processing documents and spreadsheets stored in Google Docs’ online repository, edit them, and save them back to Google Docs. And it lets you do the same for files saved at online-storage services Box.net and Dropbox. (Quickoffice already had similar support for Apple’s MobileMe service.) These cloud-based storage features are particularly useful given that Apple still doesn’t enable office suites like Quickoffice to open file attachments. (The suite does offer a workaround that requires you to forward attachments to a special address.)

I told Quickoffice my Google Docs login credentials, and it let me see all the documents I’ve created and stored there:

Medium-sized nitpick: Google Docs itself shows the files you’ve edited most recently first, and allows you to search for documents, so it’s generally very easy to find documents even if you haven’t organized them in folders. (Which I haven’t.) Quickoffice, however, lists everything in alphabetical order. You’ll be able to find your documents, but it might take more scrolling around to hunt them down.

This new version of Quickoffice requires you to sign up for an account with the company which it uses to help manage file conversions. It’s a quick process, but some customers are squawking about it in reviews at the iTunes App Store. Maybe the Quickoffice folks could help minimize unhappiness by making it clearer what they will and won’t do with your information when you sign up.

Quickoffice continues to compete with Dataviz’s mobile office suite Documents to Go–and in a perfect world, there’d be one suite that had all the best features of both products. Documents to Go has a presentation app–Quickoffice only does word processing and spreadsheets, though presentations are in the works–and built-in access to file attachments in Microsoft Exchange and Gmail accounts. But it doesn’t have Quickoffice’s useful new cloud-storage features.

Quickoffice Connect Mobile Suite is a very reasonable $9.99. There’s also a $7.99 version without the new cloud features, and Quickoffice Connect, a free app that lets view and share files stored in the cloud services, but not edit them. They’re all available now at the App Store.

Opera 10.5: Better and Chrome-ier

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

Norwegian browser company Opera has released a Windows beta of version 10.50–a follow up to 10.0, which shipped back in September. It’s definitely a beta–it’s not available at all for the Mac or Linux yet, and quirky enough that I couldn’t post this article using it–but it’s a promising one. And all the changes make Opera feel more like its much younger rival Google Chrome.

Opera’s makers are calling version 10.50 “the fastest browser on earth,” apparently based on the performance of its new JavaScript engine, which the company says is eight times faster than the old one. (The previous engine performed poorly compared to other browsers in the SunSpider benchmark test.) Judging browser speed based largely on JavaScript doesn’t make a lot of sense, but all of Opera’s competitors except Microsoft do it, too.  (It may not be a complete coincidence that IE is the other browser besides Opera that lags in the SunSpider test.)

I’ve only used Opera 10.5 a little bit so far–and some of that has been via iffy EVDO (I’m at Macworld 2010 at San Francisco’s Moscone Center…which is one enormous basement.) So far, it feels snappy. WebMonkey seems to agree.

If you want still more speed, you can turn on the Turbo mode, which compresses graphics on the server side so they download more quickly. Opera recommends it only for use when you have low-quality bandwidth–such as in the basement of a big convention center, for instance–but it could come in handy in such circumstances.

Opera 10.50’s emphasis on zippy JavaScript is at least partially a response to Google Chome–and there are a few other new features that are also distinctly Chrome-esque. Versions of Opera prior to 10.0 had a busy, crowded interface that 10.0 went a long way towards cleaning up. And 10.50 introduces a much sleeker default look that opens up more room for the Web site you’re on by doing away with standard menus:


Okay, it hasn’t done away entirely with menus–it’s really collapsed everything onto one button in the upper  left-hand corner. It’s reminiscent of Microsoft’s Office 2010 interface, except there’s no “Ribbon” to take up space. So far, I like it. (You can opt to go back to standard menus if you choose.)

Opera 10.50 also finally introduces a private browsing mode, much like Google’s Incongnito (and the similar features in IE, Firefox, and Safari):

And like Chrome and Firefox, Opera has rolled the functionality of its search bar into the address bar itself, so you can enter either URLs or search terms–which leaves me wondering why it’s also retained the now-redundant search bar.

Opera still has a bunch of unique features, including applike widgets, a neat tab view that shows thumbnails of pages, and the controversial-but-interesting built-in Unite Web server. In terms of market share, it’s the smallest of the major browser players by far: only about 1.35 percent of Technologizer visitors run it. But 10.50 looks like a strong upgrade–there’s more that I like in it than there was in 10.0, come to think of it. If you check it out, I’d love to know your thoughts.

RealPlayer SP Reaches the Mac

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Last June, I wrote about RealPlayer SP, a cool new version of the venerable, not-universally-beloved media player that shifted its emphasis. Instead of primarily being about playback, it served as a hub for easy conversion of Web video for playback on a bevy of devices–MP3 players like the iPod, smartphones, gaming consoles, and more. At the time, RealPlayer SP was a Windows-only product, but Real said it would bring it to Mac users by the end of 2009.

It took a little longer than the company thought, but a beta version of RealPlayer SP for OS X is available for download now–Real gave me a sneak peek last week–and is largely similar to the Windows version. A utility runs in the background and watches as you view videos at YouTube, DailyMotion, MetaCafe, and others that offer DRM-free content. As in RealPlayer 11, SP’s predecessor, you can download video files to your Mac for later playback in Real itself. But now you can also transfer them to forty-plus gadgets with a couple of clicks. RealPlayer chooses a format and settings, does the conversion, and even places the resulting video in the proper location for syncing when possible. For instance, it dumps video destined for an iPod or iPhone into iTunes, so it’s transferred the next time you sync.

If you don’t like RealPlayer’s defaults or own a gizmo that’s not in its list, you can tweak the conversion settings yourself (including using an option to create audio-only files from videos you’ve downloaded). You can also convert videos in batches, and even created more than one file–say, a high-res one to watch on your Mac, and a low-res one for your phone. In short, it offers as much stuff aimed at conversion nerds as it does for folks who just want to watch Web video on a variety of devices. And it does a nice job of concealing the complexity unless you want it.

Beyond the new video conversion features, RealPlayer SP’s other major addition is a social sharing option: When you come across a video online that you want to tell your pals about, you can post a link to it via Twitter, Facebook, or MySpace. The standard text includes a plug for RealPlayer, but you can delete it if you choose.

RealPlayer SP for Windows comes in both a free version and a $40 one with more H.264 video support and built-in DVD burning. Mac users just get the freebie edition, which includes unlimited H.264 but doesn’t burn DVDs. (You can, however, prep video for OS X’s own DVD-burning feature.) The Windows version also bundles Google Chrome into the installer, making you opt out if you don’t want it or already have it. But the Mac installer didn’t  try to install anything else or otherwise pitch me on anything related or unrelated to the software, and didn’t install any adware on my system.

I did encounter a couple of (minor) glitches with the beta–most notably that it failed to convert one video until I tried a second time. Overall, though RealPlayer SP is an extremely simple way to accomplish a task that formerly took multiple pieces of software and, sometimes, a bit of technical knowledge. It’s what I’ll use from now on when I’m snagging video from the Web via my Mac to watch on my iPhone.

A few screenshots of the software in action:

Siri, a Promising “Virtual Personal Assistant” for the iPhone 3GS

Friday, February 5th, 2010

Siri, an ambitious new free iPhone application, is now available in the App Store–and it’s not Just Another iPhone Application. Based on $150 million of research by the Stanford Research Institute and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Products Agency), Siri aims to be a “virtual personal assistant” that understands your spoken requests–”best sushi in san francisco,” “remind me to order flowers,” “order tickets to a show at the Castro Theater”–and takes action on your behalf.

Retrieving information by voice on the iPhone is nothing new–Google’s Mobile App is just one of several that let you search the Web by speaking. But Siri isn’t Web search. It’s all about actions you want to take, and it returns information and opportunities to do things, not search results. And it uses the iPhone’s GPS to refine its responses to your local area.

(Right now, Siri is designed for the iPhone 3GS; versions for the iPhone 3G and iPod Touch, as well as other mobile platforms, are in the works.)

It all happens via a slick interface that looks a little bit like an instant-messaging session, with embedded info and actions (such as the ability to make a phone call).






For Siri to work well, it needs to do three challenging things really well:

  • Its voice recognition needs to understand what you said;
  • Siri needs to correctly parse the meaning;
  • It needs to return relevant information.

In most of my tests, Siri handled all three tasks adeptly. The voice recognition (which is powered by Nuance, creator of Dragon Dictation for the iPhone) was perfect about ninety percent of the time. Even when it wasn’t, Siri was almost always able to figure out the gist of my request. And when it got the gist, it usually provided useful results. (If you’d rather just type requests, you can.)

But not always. For instance, here Siri knew I was asking for information on animated movies–pretty impressive–but while it told me it was giving me information on ones playing in San Francisco, it mostly listed ones that won’t be out for months.

The goal of Siri’s creators is to build in lots of functionality for transactions such as booking a taxi, making a restaurant reservation, and buying movie tickets. (That’ll both make the application as useful as possible and let Siri make money by collecting a finder’s fee on transactions you complete.) Some of those features are already there, but not all of them, and when Siri can’t take action, the experience is sometimes a little clunky:


One other criticism: Siri tries to not only tell you about local businesses, but about the best local businesses, based on user reviews at sites such as Yelp and CitySearch. When there’s a critical mass of such reviews, this technique works well. But in my tests, Siri sometimes claimed a restaurant or other business was recommended based on too little information to mean much. It was the only time that its responses to my requests seemed crude and unhelpful rather than surprisingly clever.

Siri is neat, useful, and well-designed. But I’m at least as excited by its potential as by this initial version. If it adds all the data and partners it needs to respond effectively to just about anything you ask it for, it could accomplish something that remarkably few applications or services ever have: beating Google hands-down at retrieving practical information from the Web and helping you make use of it.

Google Voice on the iPhone–Finally!

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

Apple may still officially be “pondering” whether it should approve Google’s Google Voice app for iPhone,  but there’s finally good news: Google has released an entirely Web-based version of the service (at m.google.com/voice). It works on the iPhone as well as Palm’s Pre and Pixi handsets, and brings a large chunk of the functionality of the native Voice apps for Android and BlackBerry to your phone’s browser.

This new version, like mobile Gmail, is among the most app-like browser services I’ve ever seen, period, letting you dial from your Google contacts list or a keypad, read and listen to messages, send text messages, and configure the app right within mobile Safari. When you make calls using it, the person who answers sees your Google Voice number, not the “real” one associated with your phone: Google makes an outgoing call from the iPhone, then reroutes it over a line of its own.

There’s only so far that a Web-based telephony app can go. On Android and BlackBerry, Google Voice can insert itself as your default phone interface, and it gets access to the contacts stored on your phone. On the iPhone, it stays a secondary interface and can’t see your local contacts. (You can, however, use Google Sync to sync your phone’s contacts with your Google Account.) When you make an outgoing call, your iPhone confirms you want to do so and shows Google’s routing number rather than the one you’re really calling–kind of confusing. And while the interface for wrangling messages is a vast improvement on the rudimentary one in the old Web-based Google Voice, it still send you out of Safari and into QuickTime when you want to listen to a message.

In short, the new Web-based Google Voice is impressive–but it doesn’t eliminate the value that a true native Google Voice for iPhone might bring. I’m gloomily assuming that its arrive eliminates whatever remaining chance there was that Apple might approve the app, unless the FCC decides to weigh in further. But I’m also relieved that around 80% of the Google Voice experience–just to pick a number at random–has landed on my iPhone.

Here’s a video Google produced about the new version. A few screens after the jump.