If the question distills down to whether profiles are good or bad, let's look at the alternative-- if the implementation IMS was defined such that profiles were not needed, we'd hear that IMS was "rigid', "restrictive", "brittle", etc. The real ques...
My point of view is that Google still relies on the facilities-based SP (FSP) to deliver the QoS. In this case, they are getting QoS because they are using circuit-switched facilities to deliver the call (if my understanding of the Google service is...
I think that "IMS" is a stalking horse for "Tight Control by a Facilities-Based Service Provider". And "Web 2.0" is a stalking horse for anything that is not "IMS". Ultimately, this is not a technology discussion, but rather a business model discu...