Google says Voice was "rejected" from iPhone App Store

[AppleInsider]

The Federal Communications Commission on Friday posted the un-redacted version of Google's letter regarding the iPhone App Store at the request of the search company, bringing new revelations in the Google Voice dispute.

Google's letter directly contradicts Apple's own claim that the Google Voice application was not outright rejected from the App Store. Apple, in its own note to the FCC, said it simply had not accepted the software, essentially leaving it in a state of limbo. Google, however, opted to use different language to describe the application's status.

"Apple's representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone," the letter said. "The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality."

In a post on Google's Public Policy Blog, Richard Whitt, Washington telecom and media counsel for Google, said that Google initially redacted information from its letter to the FCC -- mostly descriptions of e-mails, telephone conversations and meetings between Google and Apple executives -- in the interest of protecting sensitive conversations between two companies. The letters were filed at the request of the FCC, after Google was unable to have its Google Voice telephony application approved for use on the iPhone by Apple.

After Apple posted its letter in its entirety for the public, Google decided it would do the same.

"Shortly afterward, several individuals and organizations submitted Freedom of Information Act requests with the FCC seeking access to this information," Whitt said. "While we could have asked the FCC to oppose those requests, in light of Apple's decision to make its own letter fully public and in the interest of transparency, we decided to drop our request for confidentiality."

In its letter, Google also explained that the Google Latitude application was rejected because Apple believed the software could replace the native Maps application included with the iPhone, and also "create user confusion" with the preloaded version of Google Maps.

Google Voice was discussed a number of times between the two companies with meetings in person, and via phone calls and e-mails. Google said the primary contacts between the two were Alan Eustace, Google's senior vice president of Engineering & Research, and Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. On June 2, Google said, Schiller informed Eustace that Apple rejected Google Voice from the App Store.

In its letter, Google also argued that some of its other, previously approved applications duplicate features of the iPhone's native software. Google said that its Earth application is similar to the iPhone Maps application, and that the Google Mobile Application allows users to search much like the Web search in Apple's Safari browser.

In its own letter filed in August, Apple said it did not reject Google Voice, but that the company "continues to study it." The letter from Apple confirms what was written in Google's own note to the FCC: That the iPhone maker felt Google Voice replaced the core functionality of the device and replicated the Apple user interface.[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=11895)

[luckyw]

While I love my Apple products, they need to take their heads out of their ass about this. Yes, those apps could potentially replace the core apps, but so what? If a user is smart enough to understand to download the app, then they damn know well which one is which and there is no "confusion". Do Apple think their users are really that stupid?

Seriously, if they pull this same crap on OSX, I'd walk away immediately. Imagine no choices in Mail or Browser software on your computer.

[Dogcow]

It's reading stories like this that I really miss "As the Apple Turns."

[Quadra 610]

Tell me last month, when I might have cared.

[floccus]

I wonder what the odds are that Apple is unilaterally taking the beating over GV to shield AT&T from even more bad PR. Think about it... Apple can't sell an iPhone in the US unless it goes on AT&T's network, and if customers begin hearing even more bad things about AT&T, they're less likely to get themselves an iPhone. With T-Mobile's network no where near the capacity of AT&T's, unless Apple wants to decrease their margins by building a CDMA based iPhone, they're stuck. (Note: I'm not implying CDMA costs more to implement in the hardware, but having two incompatible models would require greater supply chain management and support, thus eating into overall profits)

Just a theory of course...

[FormerARSgm]

I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?

I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.

If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.

[w00master]

I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?

I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.

If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.

Sorry, but in this instance it's about a LACK of choice.

Duplication of functionality... really? Give me a break.

Calculator apps galore... VOIP apps galore... HOW IS GOOGLE VOICE ANY DIFFERENT?

This is *not* good for consumers. Quit apologizing for Apple.

w00master

[bigmc6000]

I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?

I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.

If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.

You're about to get burned for this (not by me, I agree with you) - go put on your poncho for the incoming sh!t storm (unless of course 1/3 (more or less?) of the AI readers took Friday off!).

EDIT: Told ya ;)

EDIT2: For curiosity sake it's less that I agree and more that, frankly, I don't give a crap about any of the apps that have ever been rejected (at least the ones that we know about)

[Tulkas]

I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?

I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.

If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.

Since the Android browser is based on WebKit, Google already has a version of Safari running on Android...no reason for Apple to do it...but I think they would have no objections to them doing it.

Now, if google decided to block all Mac users from using google search, I guess we would all choose to buy PCs instead. No, on second thought, that would make no sense. Google Voice and Google Android spec are separate products. There is no rational reason for Apple to block GV on the iPhone.

The only reason is that Apple is afraid that the GV app would be so compelling that users would opt to use the GV for all phone functions (as an aside, you wouldn't believe how many people here thought Apple meant that the GV app actually removed and replaced core Apple applications:???:). Apple should never be afraid of other companies and this type of behavior is sad for so great a company.

[sumitagarwal]

I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?

I'm sure Google would love this, and even if they didn't they certainly wouldn't attempt to block it (they actually don't have the capability to block it! And this is INTENTIONAL on their part!).

Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.

And is it lost on you that this is exactly why the telecoms (I'm looking at you, Verizon) are so vehemently deplored?

If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.

If hardware makers stopped trying to protect their proprietary software designs and instead linked their excellent hardware to the excellent Android open-source OS, I'd likely swap my 3GS for one. But I sure as hell am not going from my iPhone to a clunky HTC. And as far as capitalism and free economy... uhm, were anti-trust regulations passed explicitly to ensure the continuation of a free market economy?

[Johnny Mozzarella]

I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?

I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.

If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.

Despite your implication, I suspect Google would have no issue with Safari for Android. Having another or better browser for their platform is a win.

The problem with the Google Voice on iPhone scenario is that Apple can't bite the hand that feeds it.
AT&T subsidizes every iPhone by $400 and realistically there is no other network partner to jump ship to. So, If Apple approves GV and then customers start dropping their texting plans and lowering there minutes plans...AT&T loses hundreds of millions of dollars. Apple can't afford to cut AT&T throat...yet.

[tbsteph]

I wonder how the crowd would react if Microsoft were the app builder instead of "Do No Evil" Google? It's Apple's phone - it's Apple's software - it's Apple's store - thus, it's Apple's right to decide yay or nay on all apps appearing in the store. Unhappy? Get an Android base phone. The market is a great tool to shift what is or is not available. We certainly don't need governmental oversight.

[sumitagarwal]

http://phonedifferent.com/images/2007/11/iphone_keypad.png
http://www.maggiewilliamswanderer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/iphone-skype-keypad.jpg

Can anyone say 'case closed'?

[Johnny Mozzarella]

I think a better question would be.."How would Apple feel if Google released a tool that allowed you to to install Android on the iPhone?"

Corallary..."Would you do it?"

[g3pro]

IMPROPER LANGUAGE REMOVED BY MODERATOR. Apple. :mad:

[Roc Ingersol]

I wonder what the odds are that Apple is unilaterally taking the beating over GV to shield AT&T from even more bad PR.Apple is not going to take heat for a partner they're unhappy with. And judging from the fact that I still don't have MMS, a tethering option, or workable 3G half the time, I'd say they're more than a little upset.

Apple can and should kick out a CDMA phone. If not with Verizon's blessing and subsidy, then without for use as a cudgel during the FCC investigations.

[Icesnake]

I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?That's an amazingly ignorant question. Android is open-source; even if Google *wanted* to stop development of Safari for Android, it would be impossible to do so, short of hunting down and killing every Safari developer on the planet.

[Abster2core]

While I love my Apple products, they need to take their heads out of their ass about this. Yes, those apps could potentially replace the core apps, but so what? If a user is smart enough to understand to download the app, then they damn know well which one is which and there is no "confusion". Do Apple think their users are really that stupid?

Seriously, if they pull this same crap on OSX, I'd walk away immediately. Imagine no choices in Mail or Browser software on your computer.

Not their users.

As Jobs said right, the iPhone must be a phone first. And unlike all the cell phones that where being sold at the time, making a call and maintaining it for any degree of time was virtually impossible.

Like the Mac, Apple has by design, ensured a degree of assurance that is not seen with any operating hardware/system. You want to develop applications, you best abide by the rules. Of which the iPhone SDK is well and comprehensively described. And complying to such is mandatory.

Like J-walking. Pleading ignorance of the law, is not a defense.

You buy a Chevy and want to add a supercharger, that is your prerogative. Chances are GM will even help you screw up, it cost little to recover. Try doing the same with a Lamborghini.

P.S. You really don't know what is implied re 'replacing the core apps.'

P.P.S. You come into somebody's house and the first thing that you say is that they need to take their head our ass, you expect to get some respect and have them listen to you. Talk about stupidity.

[Icesnake]

I wonder what the odds are that Apple is unilaterally taking the beating over GV to shield AT&T from even more bad PR.The only way AT&T could get even worse PR would be to fire all their own customer service reps and hire Sprint's CS department.

Their network sucks; their network coverage is laughable; they have delayed MMS for the iPhone (presumably because their network infrastructure is wimpy and can't handle the projected load) for 3 years now, even though every other even halfway-smart phone on the AT&T network already has it; they delay voicemail and SMS messages for hours when they don't simply drop them completely; and they overcharge users of the AT&T cellular network, something like 500% to get *less* service than somewhat similar plans in Europe.

Well, I guess AT&T could be caught stealing babies from hospitals and eating them, and that might make their PR worse than it is. Although frankly, I doubt it.

Up until this GV debacle, AT&T was the dealbreaker for me getting an iPhone. Now it's AT&T *and* Apple. And for the record, I hate Microsoft and think Steve Ballmer will teach the Antichrist everything he'll ever know. But right now, the Apple/AT&T "marriage made in Hell" looks worse to me.

[sumitagarwal]

Not their users.

As Jobs said right, the iPhone must be a phone first.

... but the iPhone is an awful phone.

Seriously: my 3GS is, overall, the nicest electronic device I have ever used. It is also the worst cellphone I have ever had, going all the way back to the original Motorola StarTAC.

[John.B]

Google also tore up all the old pictures of Apple and Google, dropped one of Apple's old sweaters to the Goodwill, and deleted Apple's number from their speed dial. :lol:

[Kolchak]

I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.

If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.

Then why are you arguing against Google? It seems Apple's decision is patently anti-choice. Thanks to them, I don't get to choose whether GV gets to be on my device or not. They've made the choice for me, assuming I owned an iPhone.

Also, Google isn't exactly invading the iPhone. If you don't like the GV app, don't buy it and it won't be on your iPhone. It's as simple as that.

[Cicero]

The only way AT&T could get even worse PR would be to fire all their own customer service reps and hire Sprint's CS department.

Their network sucks; their network coverage is laughable; they have delayed MMS for the iPhone (presumably because their network infrastructure is wimpy and can't handle the projected load) for 3 years now, even though every other even halfway-smart phone on the AT&T network already has it; they delay voicemail and SMS messages for hours when they don't simply drop them completely; and they overcharge users of the AT&T cellular network, something like 500% to get *less* service than somewhat similar plans in Europe.

Well, I guess AT&T could be caught stealing babies from hospitals and eating them, and that might make their PR worse than it is. Although frankly, I doubt it.

Up until this GV debacle, AT&T was the dealbreaker for me getting an iPhone. Now it's AT&T *and* Apple. And for the record, I hate Microsoft and think Steve Ballmer will teach the Antichrist everything he'll ever know. But right now, the Apple/AT&T "marriage made in Hell" looks worse to me.

Maybe Kanye West should bust into Jobs' office and tell him how Verizon is better...:lol:

[AdamIIGS]

It's amazing how many people want google to control their phone numbers and phone calls, sorry I don't need google to control all of my numbers etc., *shrug* I'm not paranoid god knows the phone company is bad enough, but they ARE the phone companies not a search engine / software company.

Personally I don't care about this piece of software, google doesn't need to record and store my voice mails etc., email is one thing, but just no on the rest of it.

I have to say if you people that are pissed off and saying fck apple care that much just go get an Android phone and you'll be sticking it apple and att in the pocket as well as brand loyalty, problem solved.

Well off to watch a car commercial on my Zune before I can play solitaire =D ROFL

[sumitagarwal]

I have to say if you people that are pissed off and saying fck apple care that much just go get an Android phone and you'll be sticking it apple and att in the pocket as well as brand loyalty, problem solved.

You say this as if people are not already aware of this solution and actively considering it.

And really, please don't imply that there is any relation whatsoever between Android and Zune. It's stupid. I just don't understand why you would bring Zune in to further muddy a very muddy conversation. It's not like Android will 'catch' Zune's absurdism simply by virtue of both not being Apple platforms.

[Ireland]

It was rejected. The honeymoon is over.

[tpoole01]

If Apple or AT&T was willing to let me out of my contract to do that + refund my money for the phone I bought so I could replace with the phone that allows GV because that's my preference then that would be an option. The fact of the matter is Apple is not allowing me to choose what software to run on my phone and I have a huge problem with that.. I now understand the need for jailbrakers to have control of their devices and why I just chose to do the same with mine.. This really grinds my gears...

[Tulkas]

Not their users.

Yes, their users. Apple's decision regarding the iphone affect their users. Therefore if they feel their users would be confused by having an alternative phone app (ignoring for the moment the multitude they have approved) they yes, they feel their customers are stupid enough to be so confused.


As Jobs said right, the iPhone must be a phone first. And unlike all the cell phones that where being sold at the time, making a call and maintaining it for any degree of time was virtually impossible.

I never had any problems on any phone over the last 10 years with maintaining calls. If there are problems, it is likely the network. Just as your own network, Rogers, had massive problems supporting the sudden load on their network when the 3G launched, resulting in lots of dropped calls, hours and days late VVM notifications and calls not coming through at all.

Anyway, a completely irrelevant point, given that the iPhone phone app would still be fully available to all users, regardless of having GV installed.


Like the Mac, Apple has by design, ensured a degree of assurance that is not seen with any operating hardware/system. You want to develop applications, you best abide by the rules. Of which the iPhone SDK is well and comprehensively described. And complying to such is mandatory.

1) You bring up the Mac to make your point, but again, totally off point. You want to write an app for the Mac? You are free to do so and anyone that chooses to buy and run it is also free to do so.
2)And the iPhone SDK is well documented, but is also applied inconsistently. this does not appear to be a conflict with the SDK, but if it is (because of duplication), then there are a tonne of apps that got through anyway.


You buy a Chevy and want to add a supercharger, that is your prerogative. Chances are GM will even help you screw up, it cost little to recover. Try doing the same with a Lamborghini.

My car, my decision.


P.S. You really don't know what is implied re 'replacing the core apps.'

yeah, we do. And it doesn't mean removing.

[MacTripper]

Seriously, if they pull this same crap on OSX, I'd walk away immediately. Imagine no choices in Mail or Browser software on your computer.


Ok then, install Windows via Bootcamp and see you later, you just turned your Mac into a PC, cry to Microsoft for your security and privacy concerns.


The iPhone is different in the fact that there is third party carriers network security and users privacy involved, something that Apple is responsible for.

A app that gets so widely adopted that replaces Apple's core programs is a security concern, namely who is responsible if the app fails or there is a security breach. If Google just throws up it's hands and says "it's not our fault" then yes that is a issue because Apple approved the app.

Also Google has considerably less attention to users privacy than Apple has. Google tracks and saves everything a user does online, which websites they visit, what they enter in the Google search bar, what people click on etc. They are pushing for everyone to do everything online, even run apps and keep sensitive files "in the cloud".

What is preventing a future up date from collecting everyone's data? If Apple pulls some sh*t like that, people will stop buying their hardware. But what will stop Google? They got Uncle Sam in their pocket.

It has to do with the different directions the two companies are following, Apple is concerned with it's hardware base of users and Google is interested in collecting as much information on everyone as possible because they make their money from marketing information and it's chief customer, the US Government snoops.

It's a difficult situation but I'm sure Apple and Google will work everything out.

[mistergsf]

Wasn't Google accused of rejecting a fully functional Skype app as well? I seem to recall Google being accused of doing the same thing. Does anyone know what the outcome of that was?:???:

Thanks

[Tofino]

It's reading stories like this that I really miss "As the Apple Turns."

so true! whatever happened to it?

[Gazoobee]

...

Duplication of functionality... really? Give me a break.

Calculator apps galore... VOIP apps galore... HOW IS GOOGLE VOICE ANY DIFFERENT?

... You're really exaggerating/misrepresenting the comparison here.

A calculator is just a calculator, Google Voice takes over (both functionally and visually) the core function and features of the device. It's not a fair comparison to say they are the same thing.

It's also fair to say that this is a completely unique situation. There are no other devices that could rightfully be referred to as "computers" running "software" that are really in the same situation as the iPhone. The closest analogy would be a desktop OS having it's core functionality (finder?), completely replaced by a third party product, but even that is quite a different situation in some very key ways also.

Personally, I think they should differentiate the software in the store by device in this case. There is no rational argument against using Google voice on the iPod touch for instance. Apple's entire argument rests on the idea that we are talking only about the iPhone.

[benny-boy]

I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?

I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.

If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.

...and monogamy is about promiscuity.

[Tofino]

That's an amazingly ignorant question. Android is open-source; even if Google *wanted* to stop development of Safari for Android, it would be impossible to do so, short of hunting down and killing every Safari developer on the planet.

and if anyone knows where they are - it's google! ;)

[Gwydion]

The iPhone is different in the fact that there is third party carriers network security involved, something that Apple is responsible for.

And how GV can be harmful to carriers network security?

Any WinMo phone, Blacberry phone, Palm phone has been a treat to network security?

[ruel24]

I liked Apple better when they were the little company that could. Now, they're quickly become something just as ugly as Microsoft, IMO.

[Gwydion]

Wasn't Google accused of rejecting a fully functional Skype app as well? I seem to recall Google being accused of doing the same thing. Does anyone know what the outcome of that was?:???:

Thanks

No, it was FUD. Android 1.0 didn't had VoIP capabilities, they were introduced in 1.5.

Skype responded that they doen't have developed the application yet.

[Abster2core]

Yes, their users. Apple's decision regarding the iphone affect their users. Therefore if they feel their users would be confused by having an alternative phone app (ignoring for the moment the multitude they have approved) they yes, they feel their customers are stupid enough to be so confused.

Apple never said that it did or would.

As stated in Apple's response to the FCC:

"The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality…The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail.

[Tulkas]

Personally, I think they should differentiate the software in the store by device in this case. There is no rational argument against using Google voice on the iPod touch for instance. Apple's entire argument rests on the idea that we are talking only about the iPhone.
Except that it wouldn't work on the iPod.

Google Voice calls still go through as voice calls. You could use the iPod app to initiate calls that then connect your phone to the party you wish to call.

[SpamSandwich]

What nonsense. It's Apple's phone, UI and App Store and they can do whatever they want with it. Case closed.

[Gwydion]

Apple never said that it did or would.

As stated in Apple's response to the FCC:

"The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality…The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail.

And this is half a lie, if someone calls you with YOUR iPhone number, it's routed to iPhone Visual Voicemail.

[walshbj]

...We certainly don't need governmental oversight.

Debatable. But when the government asks for comments Apple and AT&T shouldn't lie. Those letters were beyond deceptive and both companies should have their feet held to the fire over them.

[Tulkas]

Apple never said that it did or would.

As stated in Apple's response to the FCC:

"The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality…The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail.

Let's correct your bolding of Apple's statement.


"The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality…The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail

Their own example of 'replacing' make it clear they do not mean removing. It 'replaces' it by 'routing' calls through a different number...not be actually removing any core files. Which, one would hope you would understand by now, would be virtually impossible...do you think Apple's AppStore installer on the iPhone could be instructed to remove 'core' iPhone functionality? Really?

Even their wording choice of "by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number"m which is clear enough, is misleading to some. Only calls that are made to your GV number would go to your GV voice mail. ANY calls made to your iPhone phone number would go to your carrier VVM, as normal.

[MacTripper]

And how GV can be harmful to carriers network security?

Any WinMo phone, Blacberry phone, Palm phone has been a treat to network security?


Let me have the keys to your car then.

Yea, I thought so.


It's because Apple doesn't trust Google and for good reason.


Apple is a vertically integrated company, meaning THEY provide the core hardware and software.

If Google's programs gain so much widespread use, THEY can dictate the hardware, much like Microsoft does.

When Google's software breaches everyone's security and privacy one day, only Apple with their OWN core programs will be safe, because Apple has it's hardware business on the line if it fails in security and or privacy.

Google has nothing to lose, it's in Uncle Sam's pocket.

[myapplelove]

What nonsense. It's Apple's phone, UI and App Store and they can do whatever they want with it. Case closed.

Exactly. Complete garbage. And from google from crying out loud. Google calling for anti-trust protection is the proverbial pope calling someone else catholic.

[Gwydion]

Let me have the keys to your car then.

Bad analogy, giving my keys is like giving someone access to core carrier equipment.

So, how access to call API's is harmful to carrier networks


It's because Apple doesn't trust Google and for good reason.

This doesn't explain treats to carrier network

[ruel24]

What nonsense. It's Apple's phone, UI and App Store and they can do whatever they want with it. Case closed.

Are you an IP lawyer? I didn't think so... So, are you so sure of that? I seem to remember reading about how similar thought processes got IBM and Microsoft in trouble in the past...

[John.B]

If Apple or AT&T was willing to let me out of my contract to do that + refund my money for the phone I bought so I could replace with the phone that allows GV because that's my preference then that would be an option. The fact of the matter is Apple is not allowing me to choose what software to run on my phone and I have a huge problem with that.. I now understand the need for jailbrakers to have control of their devices and why I just chose to do the same with mine.. This really grinds my gears...
Which doesn't change the fact that your iPhone has at least the same functionality now as it did the day you bought it.

[anonymouse]

Their own example of 'replacing' make it clear they do not mean removing.

Although the proponents of GV keep beating this point over the head, it hasn't seemed to me that anyone is really confused on this issue about what Apple meant by 'replacing'.

I generally think Apple should allow pretty much any app to run on the iPhone, including those that some might find objectionable, but it's clear that the dual purpose of GV is to subvert the iPhone as a platform, and to allow google to get their hands on as much information about you and anyone in your contacts or anyone who calls you as they can.

In the first case, I think Apple is justified, in every sense of the word, in protecting themselves by rejecting GV.

In the second case, I think it's insane to turn over all of your personal information to Google. But, what really irks me is Google enticing you with their tech candy to turn over my personal information to them as well, without my permission.

[graf1k]

I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?

I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.

If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.

1. I doubt very much Google will care if Apple built a version of Safari for Android.

2. As for you not wanting Google invading all your tech, that is totally your decision and if that's how you feel, that is totally fine. But Apple merely allowing a GV app doesn't mean you are required to download it and install it on your iPhone. I don't really want fart noise apps on any smartphone I ever own, but that doesn't mean that Apple should disallow them for anybody that does want them. The bottomline is that other than the rather dubious "replicating core functionality" claim, a GV app does not in any way breach Apple's app store policies, nor their agreement with AT&T (at least none that has been made public) and is being held up for ambiguous reasons not germane to what is best for customers.

3. So then I assume you would also be in favor of Microsoft blocking use of iTunes on Windows PCs or Google blocking Macs when trying to access Gmail?

What nonsense. It's Apple's phone, UI and App Store and they can do whatever they want with it. Case closed.

I really don't understand this argument. If you think Apple can do no wrong, then just say so. It would make more sense than what a lot of you are saying. But before you go and say that because a company made a product they can and should be allowed to cripple it any way they want, imagine a company you hate doing the same thing to Apple or a company you love, and then tell everybody how you're okay with it.

The other argument I keep seeing in favor of Apple blocking the app that I don't understand is that GV would cause a potential security breach. Could someone please explain to me how GV is any less secure than the address book on your iPhone, in Skype, or for that matter the one on your Mac itself? Before I worried about the security of an app that had just a bunch of phone numbers, I'd worry about the security of an app like the Mint app which has access to your bank accounts and credit card information for God's sake. I'm sure if security was the only problem, Google could make the app at least as secure as the Mint app.

[amtwwg]

I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?

I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.

If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.

Google created an OS that they have no control over, so if Apple wants to build a version of Safari for android they can-- and based on the last 6 months of decisions they've been making, they should do so if they wish to have any meaningful share of mobile browsers in a couple years.

No one is saying that Apple doesn't have the right to keep it out They do, it's their store and they can make any decision that doesn't take customer wishes into account that they like. It's just a bad business decision because basically, they are saying what you do in your last sentence to THEIR CUSTOMERS!! If you don't like, then buy someone else's product.

REALLY? As an Apple fanboy you support that approach? I don't as a fanboy or a stock holder. I want Apple to be viable. I want them to have the share to innovate,change the game. But decisions like this will hand the mobile OS win to Google/Android.

Right now it isn't viable to switch to Android. The Phones suck and they all seem to be on T-mobile-- which frankly is a selling point to me after 18 months of AT & T. But there are something like 19 android phones coming out in the next 6 months. Do you and APple really think they will all suck? How arrogant can this company be?

And when a good one or two comes out and the Android app store starts to really develop, the Iphone will be a fringe player. It looks good now and they have sold a ton but this kind of nonsense will drive people away from the platform.

Mark my words-- and I really hope I'm wrong because I love my Iphone and want it to stay viable-- but people will look back on these APP store problems as the start of Apple losing the market share war.... Defending Apple doesn't show loyalty, it shows a lack of business sense. They've tried this approach before-- trying to control everything-- and we all know how that turned out. I sense this isn't going to turn out much better...

[FormerARSgm]

You're about to get burned for this (not by me, I agree with you) - go put on your poncho for the incoming sh!t storm (unless of course 1/3 (more or less?) of the AI readers took Friday off!).

EDIT: Told ya ;)

EDIT2: For curiosity sake it's less that I agree and more that, frankly, I don't give a crap about any of the apps that have ever been rejected (at least the ones that we know about)

LOL :lol: You're right. How dare I voice an opinion. It's amazing how uneducated some folks are about how much data Google collects on each of us and then uses that data to market to us directly and pointedly. All of the IT folks seem to be under the Google spell... "Google is great... they will never know too much about you... share what you search, when you search, who calls you... they are the best... Google will not hurt you... you are getting sleepy..." LMAO:D Meh.

[MacTripper]

Bad analogy, giving my keys is like giving someone access to core carrier equipment.

Actually it's a good analogy, because it's just like you giving me your keys and me giving me my word that I won't drive your car.

[mdriftmeyer]

That's an amazingly ignorant question. Android is open-source; even if Google *wanted* to stop development of Safari for Android, it would be impossible to do so, short of hunting down and killing every Safari developer on the planet.

You're the one being ignorant. Google negotiates with the Telcos just how they want the Android platform to operate within their ecosystem.

Android SDK:


4.4 You agree that you will not engage in any activity with the SDK, including the development or distribution of an application, that interferes with, disrupts, damages, or accesses in an unauthorized manner the servers, networks, or other properties or services of any third party including, but not limited to, Google or any mobile communications carrier.


Apple SDK:


(c) Your Application will be developed in compliance with the Documentation and the Program Requirements,
the current set of which is set forth in Section 3.3 below;
(d) To the best of Your knowledge and belief, Your Application does not and will not violate, misappropriate, or
infringe any Apple or third party copyrights, trademarks, rights of privacy and publicity, trade secrets, patents, or
other proprietary or legal rights (e.g. musical composition or performance rights, video rights, photography or
image rights, logo rights, third party data rights, etc. for content and materials that may be included in Your
Application); and
(e) You will not, through use of the SDK or otherwise, create any Application or other program that would
disable, hack or otherwise interfere with any security, digital signing, digital rights management, content
protection, verification or authentication mechanisms implemented in or by the iPhone operating system
software, iPod touch operating system software, this SDK, or other Apple software, services or technology, or
enable others to do so.



Google is focusing on the Server and Apple is focusing on the Client. It's obvious that within their respective interests they dictate all terms of use.

[graf1k]

LOL :lol: You're right. How dare I voice an opinion. It's amazing how uneducated some folks are about how much data Google collects on each of us and then uses that data to market to us directly and pointedly. All of the IT folks seem to be under the Google spell... "Google is great... they will never know too much about you... share what you search, when you search, who calls you... they are the best... Google will not hurt you... you are getting sleepy..." LMAO:D Meh.

Not that I don't worry about too much personal data getting out onto the web, but what harm do you really think Google can do with your search history and data about who calls you? As long as google doesn't know my SSN, my bank info, my passwords or my address, I'm really not terribly worried. Hell, most people give up more sensitive info freely to Facebook than they do in searches.

[Bageljoey]

... but the iPhone is an awful phone.

Seriously: my 3GS is, overall, the nicest electronic device I have ever used. It is also the worst cellphone I have ever had, going all the way back to the original Motorola StarTAC.

I find this hard to believe. Unless you are complaining about at&t's service (which everyone agrees has been poor in some areas), this just sounds like angry hyperboly to me. I find it easy to dial, answer, use the phone book... Voice quality is good. Visual voicemail is fantastic... Honestly, my biggest problem is that it is uncomfortable to hold between my ear and shoulder while I'm doing the dishes.
The iPhone is by far the best phone I have had bar none. Add on all the extras (apps, iPod, video, Internet, camera, games, and on-screen keyboard...) and there is no purchase since my first PowerBook in 1991 that I have been happier with. I couldn't say that if I didn't like the phone part.

[Multimedia]

Is it just me or am I the only one who doesn't see the duplication in the Google Voice application with anything Apple nor AT&T offer on the iPhone? :???:

[BenRoethig]

What nonsense. It's Apple's phone, UI and App Store and they can do whatever they want with it. Case closed.

And if they completely screw it up by driving away the developers and creating bad press for themsevles it will be their fault...outside the Mac community that is.

[Tulkas]

Although the proponents of GV keep beating this point over the head, it hasn't seemed to me that anyone is really confused on this issue about what Apple meant by 'replacing'.

Oh, i think it is obvious people are still confused. Some people actually think it means that somehow, Google's app could remove core Apple functions...which of course is insane, given the Apple installer would not allow this. Others simply hide behind feigned ignorance and say we don't know what Apple meant...which of course we do.


I generally think Apple should allow pretty much any app to run on the iPhone, including those that some might find objectionable, but it's clear that the dual purpose of GV is to subvert the iPhone as a platform, and to allow google to get their hands on as much information about you and anyone in your contacts or anyone who calls you as they can.


You say subvert, I say offer an alternative. Choice is good. I like choice.


In the first case, I think Apple is justified, in every sense of the word, in protecting themselves by rejecting GV.

I suppose, for a weak, fearful company, sure. For a company built on innovation and competition, it comes off as petty, fearful and sort of pathetic. I'd rather see Apple compete and win than to see them turn into a paranoid nouveau Microsoft.


In the second case, I think it's insane to turn over all of your personal information to Google. But, what really irks me is Google enticing you with their tech candy to turn over my personal information to them as well, without my permission.
Speaking of paranoid.

You and John B. have said in the past that Google grabs our info without consent when using services like GV...no one has back this up in anyway though, so I will take that for what it is worth.

[Quadra 610]

And if they completely screw it up by driving away the developers and creating bad press for themsevles it will be their fault...outside the Mac community that is.


And if they don't?

And if my mother had wheels I'd be a wagon.

If this, if that, etc.

So far it's looking pretty good for Apple, despite GV. As we were devoting pages and pages to discussing it, the average user hardly noticed, and it's doutful they'd even care if they did. In fact, it's looking very, very rosy for Apple. Developers are still flocking to the iPhone and it looks like there's no end in sight. Demand for the iPhone is ever-increasing (even despite AT&T), and as long as it is, developers will not only stay, but many more will come aboard. Apple is on track to sell a record number of iPhones next quarter, and as they expand to more carriers, Apple will only widen its share. The Apple of 2009 is waaay too smart and in touch to screw this up. Apple's business is taking things that are "screwed up" and making them insanely profitable. No one in the industry realized smartphones were broken until Appe stepped in to fix them.

iPhone. iPhone. iPhone. That's what it's all about. We've got another iPod phenomenon.

[Tulkas]

Is it just me or am I the only one who doesn't see the duplication in the Google Voice application with anything Apple nor AT&T offer on the iPhone? :???:
VVM, Dialer, and SMS are the three most obvious 'duplications'.

But, Apple has allowed other apps that also offer alternatives to these functions. Perhaps Google's implementation is just that much better, or their addition services through these functions are so compelling that it scares Apple.

[Gwydion]

Actually it's a good analogy, because it's just like you giving me your keys and me giving me my word that I won't drive your car.

No, it's a bad analogy because API's doesn't allow more than making calls. So I'm still waitingo how GV (or Skype) can be a treat to carriers networks

[Gwydion]

You're the one being ignorant. Google negotiates with the Telcos just how they want the Android platform to operate within their ecosystem.


And how can google ban Safari from being developed or distributed?

[graf1k]

And if they don't?

And if my mother had wheels I'd be a wagon.

If this, if that, etc.

So far it's looking pretty good for Apple, despite GV. In fact, very, very rosy. Developers are still flocking to the iPhone and it looks like there's no end in sight. Demand for the iPhone is ever-increasing, and as long as it is, developers will not only stay, but many more will come aboard.

Yeah, Apple can reject this app for good and the world isn't going to end. In fact, most iPhone users probably would never notice or care. No one is saying otherwise from what I can see, and anyone who is, is wrong. That still doesn't justify why Apple would go out of it's way to piss off their customers. Unless you are a complete monopoly, it doesn't pay to unnecessarily piss off even a fraction of your customers, especially when the alternative has no down side for you or any of your customers. The same people that would never notice or care that a GV app wasn't available wouldn't notice or care if one was available. The people that want it are that much more satisfied with their iPhone purchase, and it costs Apple not one red cent.

[anonymouse]

[...]

You say subvert, I say offer an alternative. Choice is good. I like choice.

[...]

You and John B. have said in the past that Google grabs our info without consent when using services like GV...no one has back this up in anyway though, so I will take that for what it is worth.

Clearly it's Google's intent to undermine Windows, Mac OS, iPhone OS and ever other platform out there as a platform where people will store information rather than with Google. Everything they do is to that end.

And, I do not believe I have ever said anything about, "Google [grabbing your] info without consent". What I said here is that if you have my personal information -- phone number, email address, street address, company I work for, job title, etc., etc. -- in your Contacts and you put the information from your Contacts on Google's servers, you have given Google my personal information without my consent.

[Tulkas]

LOL :lol: You're right. How dare I voice an opinion. It's amazing how uneducated some folks are about how much data Google collects on each of us and then uses that data to market to us directly and pointedly. All of the IT folks seem to be under the Google spell... "Google is great... they will never know too much about you... share what you search, when you search, who calls you... they are the best... Google will not hurt you... you are getting sleepy..." LMAO:D Meh.

Well, when the opinion stated has so many hole, people will reply. let's look at your original post:
I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?

I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.

If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.

How would google feel about Safari on Android? Good I guess. More apps=good, for one. And they already use webkit for the native browser.

Google having the right to invade every piece of tech you own? How exactly are they doing this? If you mean by offering you the choice to install an app or use their service...well, damn how rude of them. That is down right nefarious...:no:

And if we want GV on the iPhone? I guess we could discuss our disappointment with them not allowing it on the iPhone. Not everyone that is a fan of Apple gives up their brain at the door and assumes everything the do is right.

[Tulkas]

And, I do not believe I have ever said anything about, "Google [grabbing your] info without consent". What I said here is that if you have my personal information -- phone number, email address, street address, company I work for, job title, etc., etc. -- in your Contacts and you put the information from your Contacts on Google's servers, you have given Google my personal information without my consent.
Then blame me, not google. If I use MacOSX mail.app to email your contact info to someone at Microsoft, would you blame Apple, because I used their app, or MS for receiving the info? Or would you blame my ISP for transmitting said data?

Perhaps you might consider blaming the person that released your info instead.

Blocking GV App doesn't prevent this happening in the least. If I choose to give such data to Google or Apple or anyone else, that is my choice and my fault.

[Mazda 3s]

Can't say that I'm surprised by all of this. Apple is like an evil dictator.

http://i33.tinypic.com/sexbg5.jpg

[anonymouse]

Then blame me, not google. If I use MacOSX mail.app to email your contact info to someone at Microsoft, would you blame Apple, because I used their app, or MS for receiving the info? Or would you blame my ISP for transmitting said data?

Perhaps you might consider blaming the person that released your info instead.

Blocking GV App doesn't prevent this happening in the least. If I choose to give such data to Google or Apple or anyone else, that is my choice and my fault.

Well, in my original post, I indicated that you were nuts for giving them your personal information, but that I was not happy with their practices of dangling bits of tech candy in front of the weak minded to also get my information, without my consent.

[bwik]

And this is half a lie, if someone calls you with YOUR iPhone number, it's routed to iPhone Visual Voicemail.


Your name is great!!! :smokey:

Empty my chamber pot, Gwydion!! Sweep the floor, Gwydion!! hahaha

[Robre]

Apple never said that it did or would.

As stated in Apple's response to the FCC:

"The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality…The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail.

I was waiting for somebody to post Apple's response to the FCC. Thanks.

I refer to the statement " disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail."

Disabling ?!? What a wrong choice of word. If everybody I know only has my GV number and calls me with that number, than GV is capturing my voice mails. When GV calls me (my iPhone) and I don't answer, VVM is recording it as a voice mail. I would not have "disabled" Visual VM, I only decided not to use it for some of my calls. Apple is starting to sound like Microsoft, twisting and turning words, hoping that whoever reads their response doesn't know all the details. I'm so sad to see this happening.

BTW: Everybody seems to like GV features and wants to have them. GV is a carrier tool - meaning it only really shines when it is used by a carrier (controlling in and out-bound calls). Google has control of in-bound since they give us a new number.
What if ATT would offer these features??
These features are available for decades. Just google "one number services" or "myonenumber".
Then again, none of the carriers has "Smart" as their first name.

[aplnub]

http://phonedifferent.com/images/2007/11/iphone_keypad.png
http://www.maggiewilliamswanderer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/iphone-skype-keypad.jpg

Can anyone say 'case closed'?

Line 2 got approved and it looks just like GV Mobile! Skype also looks similar and it is approved. *Edit* I just noticed you posted a Skype photo.

However, I can say that Apple sucks big (@(% for this move. Case Closed is right.

[Timon]

Apple never said that it did or would.

As stated in Apple's response to the FCC:

"The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality…The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail.

So let me state this differently.

If some calls my home phone which is forwarded to my iPhone but my home voice mail takes the message am I bypassing VVM?

If some one calls my GoogleVoice number which is forwarded to my iPhone but GVM takes the message am I bypassing VVM?

Now if anyone answers no to the first and yes to the second your brain dead. There is ABSOLUTELY, CATEGORICALLY and WITHOUT QUESTION no difference between the two. Neither of then bypasses the iPhones VVM.

Case Closed! Apple is WRONG!

http://phonedifferent.com/images/2007/11/iphone_keypad.png http://www.maggiewilliamswanderer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/iphone-skype-keypad.jpg

Can anyone say 'case closed'?

I will, Case Closed!

[Quadra 610]

Apple is staying true to its "user experience first" policy that has been in effect for years, and their "we give you what we like and you can come and play" policy. This all ties into it. You might think it's getting to extremes now, but that's the same reason we choose Apple in the first place.

You can blame the consumer. They're all flocking to the iPhone in droves. And there's a lot more to come. No real Android presence. No real WinMo presence. Pre is in the bag. RIM is in the bag. Symbian is bleeding. iPhone is the clear choice.

You can blame the developers, too. They aint leavin. And there's a lot more on the way.

So who's right after all? The complainers on this thread? Or those that continue to help make the iPhone platform what it is, regardless of GV?

Seems like a tough call all around.

[floccus]

http://phonedifferent.com/images/2007/11/iphone_keypad.png
http://www.maggiewilliamswanderer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/iphone-skype-keypad.jpg

Can anyone say 'case closed'?

NO!

Apple isn't saying that Google is implementing a UI element that serves as a keypad, but that the GV app actually bypasses Apple's own cellular connection dialer. Skype and similar place a "call" over WiFi. They specifically don't dial and transmit a cellular voice call in their own app. What GV was doing is bypassing the native dialer, which is THE CORE FUNCTION OF THE iPHONE!.

I'd love to have GV available as a native app, but I can see where Apple doesn't like google bypassing the most important core function of the phone, the ability to place cellular calls.

[aplnub]

NO!

Apple isn't saying that Google is implementing a UI element that serves as a keypad, but that the GV app actually bypasses Apple's own cellular connection dialer. Skype and similar place a "call" over WiFi. They specifically don't dial and transmit a cellular voice call in their own app. What GV was doing is bypassing the native dialer, which is THE CORE FUNCTION OF THE iPHONE!.

I'd love to have GV available as a native app, but I can see where Apple doesn't like google bypassing the most important core function of the phone, the ability to place cellular calls.

Then allow GV Mobile and GV by Google and others to only make it available via WIFI. But Apple will not!!! So Apple is two faced ball suckers for this.

[Timon]

Google does not do it's own transmission. It always uses the cell voice network. It does however call you back when you make calls through it's dialer. The only time that's useful is when making International calls. If you calling within the states there is NO advantage in using the GV dialer.

Now Apple and AT&T may not like you making International call bypassing them but they have no reason to complain since you could always use a calling card or 800 calling service to place your International calls.

As much as I like Apple they really need to back off on this one. The bad press is costing them more than just approving GV.

[John.B]

And, I do not believe I have ever said anything about, "Google [grabbing your] info without consent". What I said here is that if you have my personal information -- phone number, email address, street address, company I work for, job title, etc., etc. -- in your Contacts and you put the information from your Contacts on Google's servers, you have given Google my personal information without my consent.
Dude, don't bother. Tulkas has made up his mind and all the logic in the world isn't going to change it. At some point, Google stopped being the "do no evil" internet darling and started acting like an advertising giant, and advertising giants covet contact info.

[Tulkas]

NO!

Apple isn't saying that Google is implementing a UI element that serves as a keypad, but that the GV app actually bypasses Apple's own cellular connection dialer. Skype and similar place a "call" over WiFi. They specifically don't dial and transmit a cellular voice call in their own app. What GV was doing is bypassing the native dialer, which is THE CORE FUNCTION OF THE iPHONE!.

I'd love to have GV available as a native app, but I can see where Apple doesn't like google bypassing the most important core function of the phone, the ability to place cellular calls.

No, this is a misunderstanding of google voice as a service and app.

The app, or webapp or webpage all initiate a call to your phone and a call to number you are calling. It doesn't make any call from your phone...

[Tulkas]

Dude, don't bother. Tulkas has made up his mind and all the logic in the world isn't going to change it. At some point, Google stopped being the "do no evil" internet darling and started acting like an advertising giant, and advertising giants covet contact info.

I'd rather make up my mind than just making shit up. Posters that do that are worthless. Don't you agree?

[Tulkas]

So who's right after all? The complainers on this thread? Or those that continue to help make the iPhone platform what it is, regardless of GV?

Seems like a tough call all around.

the complainers, the misfits,the rebels. Those that challenge the status quo. think different.

Apple has improved much in the past by listening to 'complainers'. They used to even celebrate them.

[Quadra 610]

the complainers, the misfits,the rebels. Those that challenge the status quo. think different.

Apple has improved much in the past by listening to 'complainers'. They used to even celebrate them.

I don't think GV is really the same thing here.

[Tulkas]

Well, in my original post, I indicated that you were nuts for giving them your personal information, but that I was not happy with their practices of dangling bits of tech candy in front of the weak minded to also get my information, without my consent.
Then you are obvious outraged that Apple has enabled this to happen automatically on all Macs with Snow Leopard, right? Check a box and all my contacts and all that info I have on you, goes to Google..or yahoo...or Apple.


Guess Apple is liable for your info going to google by taking advantage of the 'simple minded'.

I do sympathize with your paranoia about google and their having your info. But, how is this improved by Apple denying the GV app? Not only does Apple enable all of your contacts to go to google, built right into their main OS, there are lots of methods for users to sync their contacts into into google, yahoo, msn, mobileme and all other info services. So, banning the app does what in this regard? nothing.

[Tulkas]

I don't think GV is really the same thing here.

A compelling product. A service that has the potential to radically upset the status quo in telephone services. A combination so innovative that it has a company known for great innovation so afraid that they try to minimize the damage with weak gestures like banning the app.


Seems very fitting to me.

[Quadra 610]

A compelling product. A service that has the potential to radically upset the status quo in telephone services. A combination so innovative that it has a company known for great innovation so afraid that they try to minimize the damage with weak gestures like banning the app.


Seems very fitting to me.

This "innovation" didn't come from Apple. When Apple applauds the "misfits", "square pegs", etc., it's referring to itself, not any third party that duplicates its feature set and causes problems between Apple and its partner, AT&T. Gandhi, Einstein, etc., are not just a metaphor for Apple, but a metpahor for what Apple creates. Apple's own ideas, or ones that it has acquired and implemented on its own terms.

It might be a different story if Apple buys the rights to GV from Google or releases their own GV-style app.

It's only cool to talk about how cool the misfits and upstarts are when they're a metaphor for you. And I really don't see Apple and Google "teaming up" to implement this. Not in the competitive climate they're in now.

And the perfect example of Apple being an innovator, a misfit, a "square peg", is the iPhone itself, and the revolution that Apple brought to the mobile industry overnight.

[John.B]

This "innovation" didn't come from Apple. When Apple applauds the "misfits", "square pegs", etc., it's referring to itself, not any third party that duplicates its feature set and causes problems between Apple and its partner, AT&T. Gandhi, Einstein, etc., are not just a metaphor for Apple, but a metpahor for what Apple creates. Apple's own ideas, or ones that it has acquired and implemented on its own terms.

It might be a different story if Apple buys the rights to GV from Google or releases their own GV-style app.

It's only cool to talk about how cool the misfits and upstarts are when they're a metaphor for you. And I really don't see Apple and Google "teaming up" to implement this. Not in the competitive climate they're in now.

And the perfect example of Apple being an innovator, a misfit, a "square peg", is the iPhone itself, and the revolution that Apple brought to the mobile industry overnight.
Google didn't invent this, and there is no reason that Apple themselves couldn't develop their own take on the concept.

[iBill]

Where did all these googletards come from, anyway?

[djsherly]

I think Tulkas has made his/her point abundantly clear. For those of you who think Apple's explanation makes sense, can one of you please explain how it might do what Apple is asserting it does - ie replacing core telephony? I don't think anyone on that side of the argument have demonstrated anything except parroting Apple press releases or jeering.

To me, it's simple. There's no physical way to replace the functionality. You might choose to use another dialer - like the numerous ones out there, but that's a choice and the 'core' telephony never ceases to exist. If someone calls me on my mobile number and I don't answer, then a VVM is left for me should the caller choose to leave one. So VVM never disappears, either.

[Quadra 610]

If you guys think there's controversy in *this* thread, check out the following:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=788942&page=13

You'd think it's something from Winsupersite.

[John.B]

I think Tulkas has made his/her point abundantly clear. For those of you who think Apple's explanation makes sense, can one of you please explain how it might do what Apple is asserting it does - ie replacing core telephony? I don't think anyone on that side of the argument have demonstrated anything except parroting Apple press releases or jeering.

To me, it's simple. There's no physical way to replace the functionality. You might choose to use another dialer - like the numerous ones out there, but that's a choice and the 'core' telephony never ceases to exist. If someone calls me on my mobile number and I don't answer, then a VVM is left for me should the caller choose to leave one. So VVM never disappears, either.

Google is free to develop and market their own phone (with their own carrier agreement) which they could put anything they wanted on. They have the resources, they even had a shot a bidding for the 700MHz spectrum but they chickened-out.

Honestly, I sometimes wonder if having every little task done for them (like their laundry) has made the braintrust at Google lazy real-world thinkers.

[SGSStateStudent]

I'm sick of all these bickering between Apple and Google over this GV issue. Maybe they're doing this to avoid anti-trust issues that the FCC claim?

[SGSStateStudent]

If you guys think there's controversy in *this* thread, check out the following:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=788942&page=13

You'd think it's something from Winsupersite.

Thanks for that. The quoted link is a good example.

[piot]

For all those of you bickering on both sides of the semantics fence.... John Gruber sums it up (as usual with just one simple sentence.

Daring Fireball (http://www.macworld.com/article/142882/2009/09/google_fcc.html)

"Clearly, though, Google doesn’t see the difference between “not accepted” and “rejected” that Apple claims to see."

[Tulkas]

For all those of you bickering on both sides of the semantics fence.... John Gruber sums it up (as usual with just one simple sentence.

Daring Fireball (http://www.macworld.com/article/142882/2009/09/google_fcc.html)

"Clearly, though, Google doesn’t see the difference between “not accepted” and “rejected” that Apple claims to see."

In a similar way that someone that has applied to Harvard might not see a difference between a letter that says they were not accepted and one that said they were rejected. Or the difference between getting a letter in that mail from the bank that said you were not approved for a loan and one that said you were rejected.

[MuncyWeb]

Well now Google sells an iPhone look-a-like with their name on the back of it. So let's just call it even..lol.

[piot]

In a similar way that someone that has applied to Harvard might not see a difference between a letter that says they were not accepted and one that said they were rejected. Or the difference between getting a letter in that mail from the bank that said you were not approved for a loan and one that said you were rejected.

And similar to admission to the App Store... acceptance to Harvard, or obtaining a bank load requires that certain criteria are met.

Circumstances can change. A student can get better grades. A loan applicant might add a zero to their salary and Google might amend the GV app.

Many people are accusing Apple of lying in their letter to the FCC. But I have yet to see anyone offer a good reason why Apple should do so. Apple knew that both AT&T and Google had been asked the same questions. I believe that (legally) Apple are within their rights to reject any application to their App Store. If they really had just outright rejected GV... and they fully expected Google's letter to confirm that..... then why write that the app was still going through the process?

[Tulkas]

Well now Google sells an iPhone look-a-like with their name on the back of it. So let's just call it even..lol.

They do? Exactly what phone is that? Please don't say android.

[Tulkas]

And similar to admission to the App Store... acceptance to Harvard, or obtaining a bank load requires that certain criteria are met.

Circumstances can change. A student can get better grades. A loan applicant might add a zero to their salary and Google might amend the GV app.

Many people are accusing Apple of lying in their letter to the FCC. But I have yet to see anyone offer a good reason why Apple should do so. Apple knew that both AT&T and Google had been asked the same questions. I believe that (legally) Apple are within their rights to reject any application to their App Store. If they really had just outright rejected GV... and they fully expected Google's letter to confirm that..... then why write that the app was still going through the process?
I don;t think they lied. I think they crafted their response very carefully (actually reads more like a press release than a response to a gov body). There isa ton of wiggle room in their statements and some phrases seemingly chosen to confuse (well, confuse some).

And yes, criteria must be met. Hopefully they are equally and evenly applied.

Mainly my response was to show that now matter how you parse 'not approved' or 'rejected', there is little difference in practice or reality.

[SpamSandwich]

And if they completely screw it up by driving away the developers and creating bad press for themsevles it will be their fault...outside the Mac community that is.

That's exactly the point. Action = reaction. Let them do the 'right' things and it will flourish, they will simply pay a penalty if they make bad decisions... but it's no reason to sue them or get the government involved.