Google responds to FCC, Skype rejection claims
Google on Friday, like Apple and AT&T, responded to a Federal Communications Commission inquiry, and also disputed a report that alleged the application Skype had been blocked from use on Android.
The document Google provided to the FCC, as it looks into Apple's non-acceptance of the Google Voice application on the iPhone platform, was heavily redacted, essentially removing all details of communication between Google and Apple as the search engine company attempted to have its telephony service software approved for release on the App Store. But it did offer some insight into what the Google Voice application offered, and how the Android Marketplace works.
Even though Google plans to offer its voice application as a Web app, the search company claims that software that would run through the iPhone's Safari browser would not be as full-featured.
"The Google Voice features accessible by the mobile website are more limited than those features found in the App Store version of Google Voice," Google's letter to the FCC reads. "For instance, only the App Store version of Google Voice can directly access the iPhone address book and dial directly from the application, thus providing a more seamless experience for the iPhone user."
It was that "seamless experience" that apparently caused problems for Apple. Last Friday, the iPhone maker, in its own letter to the FCC, said the fact that Google Voice mimicks the features of its own native software caused the Cupertino, Calif., company to not accept the software into the App Store yet.
Google also outlined the differences between its Android Marketplace and Apple's App Store. The letter noted that unlike with Apple, there is no pre-approval process for those who wish to make applications available. The approval process includes an automated system that tests for technical issues.
"This automated process does not screen or reject applications on the basis of functionality," the letter states. "In addition, it is important to note that Android Market is not the exclusive method of distribution for Android applications. Developers are free to make their applications available through alternative channels instead of, or in addition to, the android Market, and users are free to install Android applications from any source they choose."
This Thursday, the FCC will look into the wireless industry with its letters from Apple, AT&T and Google in hand. USA Today reports that the meeting will have three parts: Examining wireless competition, looking at barriers to entry and investment, and scrutinizing consumer billing, including contracts.
Andy Rubin, Google's vice president of Mobile Platforms, also took issue with a USA Today report printed Friday that alleged the company had been blocking the voice over IP service Skype from releasing an application on its mobile phone platform, Android. In a post on Google's Public Policy Blog, Rubin called the claim, which suggested Google could be under pressure from the FCC for its alleged actions, "inaccurate."
"At this point no software developer -- including Skype -- has implemented a complete VoIP application for Android," Rubin said. "But we're excited to see -- and use -- these applications when they're submitted, because they often provide more choice and options for users. We also look forward to the day when consumers can access any application, including VoIP apps, from any device, on any network."
The document Google provided to the FCC, as it looks into Apple's non-acceptance of the Google Voice application on the iPhone platform, was heavily redacted, essentially removing all details of communication between Google and Apple as the search engine company attempted to have its telephony service software approved for release on the App Store. But it did offer some insight into what the Google Voice application offered, and how the Android Marketplace works.
Even though Google plans to offer its voice application as a Web app, the search company claims that software that would run through the iPhone's Safari browser would not be as full-featured.
"The Google Voice features accessible by the mobile website are more limited than those features found in the App Store version of Google Voice," Google's letter to the FCC reads. "For instance, only the App Store version of Google Voice can directly access the iPhone address book and dial directly from the application, thus providing a more seamless experience for the iPhone user."
It was that "seamless experience" that apparently caused problems for Apple. Last Friday, the iPhone maker, in its own letter to the FCC, said the fact that Google Voice mimicks the features of its own native software caused the Cupertino, Calif., company to not accept the software into the App Store yet.
Google also outlined the differences between its Android Marketplace and Apple's App Store. The letter noted that unlike with Apple, there is no pre-approval process for those who wish to make applications available. The approval process includes an automated system that tests for technical issues.
"This automated process does not screen or reject applications on the basis of functionality," the letter states. "In addition, it is important to note that Android Market is not the exclusive method of distribution for Android applications. Developers are free to make their applications available through alternative channels instead of, or in addition to, the android Market, and users are free to install Android applications from any source they choose."
This Thursday, the FCC will look into the wireless industry with its letters from Apple, AT&T and Google in hand. USA Today reports that the meeting will have three parts: Examining wireless competition, looking at barriers to entry and investment, and scrutinizing consumer billing, including contracts.
Andy Rubin, Google's vice president of Mobile Platforms, also took issue with a USA Today report printed Friday that alleged the company had been blocking the voice over IP service Skype from releasing an application on its mobile phone platform, Android. In a post on Google's Public Policy Blog, Rubin called the claim, which suggested Google could be under pressure from the FCC for its alleged actions, "inaccurate."
"At this point no software developer -- including Skype -- has implemented a complete VoIP application for Android," Rubin said. "But we're excited to see -- and use -- these applications when they're submitted, because they often provide more choice and options for users. We also look forward to the day when consumers can access any application, including VoIP apps, from any device, on any network."
Comments
Apple was right to address the privacy concerns of their software.
Google has become the snoops, marketing and behaviorists dream tool.
Google has become a agent for EVIL, at least for Big Brother and anyone else minded.
I block all their tracking garbage on my computer too.
No profile behavior building going on in my life, no way.
*loosens tin foil hat*
I don't like the idea of software taking my contacts, my personal information, and distributing it all over the internet like Google's Voice does.
The solution is pretty simple: don't sign up for GV...
I don't like the idea of software taking my contacts, my personal information, and distributing it all over the internet like Google's Voice does.
And how is Google any different than Yahoo and Mobile me when it comes to syncing you address book? Their not, all three can already sync you address book to the cloud and none of them, including the "evel" Google will release your contacts to anyone else without your permission.
And how is Google any different than Yahoo and Mobile me when it comes to syncing you address book? Their not, all three can already sync you address book to the cloud and none of them, including the "evel" Google will release your contacts to anyone else without your permission.
The difference is when I sign up for mobile me or even yahoo. I decide if I want to transfer my information. By the way, I would never give my information to Yahoo either. I have a Yahoo Account but because they like Google make their money by selling information to marketing companies, I don't trust them. When Ads stop coming in and there is a new chief, all bets are off. They also refuse to say what they will do with gathered info.
GV transfers this data on installation it is not an option. Apple would be liable since the app would be on their store and they released an app that allowed this to happen. I would be pissed.
If Google used the Iphone conventions and figured away to not bypass core features like visual voicemail the app would most likely be approve quickly.
I love they way Google makes it sound like they only wanted to access the contacts for dialing, when in fact all they want is the contact info on their servers. Think about it. You have one of the richest technology companies, they don't sell anything but personal info for advertising, they offer everything for free, why would they want access to the contacts on the iPhone?
The difference is when I sign up for mobile me or even yahoo. I decide if I want to transfer my information. By the way, I would never give my information to Yahoo either. I have a Yahoo Account but because they like Google make their money by selling information to marketing companies, I don't trust them. When Ads stop coming in and there is a new chief, all bets are off. They also refuse to say what they will do with gathered info.
GV transfers this data on installation it is not an option. Apple would be liable since the app would be on their store and they released an app that allowed this to happen. I would be pissed.
If Google used the Iphone conventions and figured away to not bypass core features like visual voicemail the app would most likely be approve quickly.
I love they way Google makes it sound like they only wanted to access the contacts for dialing, when in fact all they want is the contact info on their servers. Think about it. You have one of the richest technology companies, they don't sell anything but personal info for advertising, they offer everything for free, why would they want access to the contacts on the iPhone?
Where did you read that the contacts information being sent is not an option? If this is true, it is a dick move on Google's part. I have not seen that in any of the information I have read.
If Google used the Iphone conventions and figured away to not bypass core features like visual voicemail the app would most likely be approve quickly.
There already is a mechanism to avoid using the Google Voice voice mail system and use the built in iPhone VVM system. Give out your iPhone phone number instead of your GV phone number. The GV voice mail system only works for calls made to your Google Voice phone number. Calls to your iPhone number will go to your iPhone VVM. Alternatively, you can change your GV acct settings not to include your iPhone as one of the phones to ring when someone calls your GV phone number.
It is only bypassed or replaced if your calls use your GV phone number. You can install the GV app or GV mobile or the other third party GV apps and still use your iphone VVM.
The solution is pretty simple: don't sign up for GV...
And that would work. Another option is for Apple to wait until they have assurance from google that the information will not be used inappropriately...as they have done. Apple is right to be concerned about this, but how they could enforce it is questionable.
You are correct though. The only way to be sure is to not use it.
The letter noted that unlike with Apple, there is no pre-approval process for those who wish to make applications available. The approval process includes an automated system that tests for technical issues.
"This automated process does not screen or reject applications on the basis of functionality," the letter states. "In addition, it is important to note that Android Market is not the exclusive method of distribution for Android applications. Developers are free to make their applications available through alternative channels instead of, or in addition to, the android Market, and users are free to install Android applications from any source they choose."
Cool... If I'm a malware author, I now know which environment gives me a big green light, and where to spend my energy.
The difference is when I sign up for mobile me or even yahoo. I decide if I want to transfer my information. By the way, I would never give my information to Yahoo either. I have a Yahoo Account but because they like Google make their money by selling information to marketing companies, I don't trust them. When Ads stop coming in and there is a new chief, all bets are off. They also refuse to say what they will do with gathered info.
GV transfers this data on installation it is not an option. Apple would be liable since the app would be on their store and they released an app that allowed this to happen. I would be pissed.
If Google used the Iphone conventions and figured away to not bypass core features like visual voicemail the app would most likely be approve quickly.
I love they way Google makes it sound like they only wanted to access the contacts for dialing, when in fact all they want is the contact info on their servers. Think about it. You have one of the richest technology companies, they don't sell anything but personal info for advertising, they offer everything for free, why would they want access to the contacts on the iPhone?
If what you're saying about data installation not being an option is true, then these are excellent observations, and makes me rethink GV.
Time for Apple to rev up it's online strategy and see how google like it.....
With the current MobileMe geniuses they have?
Good luck......
With the current MobileMe geniuses they have?
Good luck......
Well exactly, their online strategy is crap. The whole thing needs a good rethink.
Well exactly, their online strategy is crap. The whole thing needs a good rethink.
Especially when they charge you $100, on top of which there is a ridiculous additional charge for every new email address for a family member....
Especially when they charge you $100, on top of which there is a ridiculous additional charge for every new email address for a family member....
Reminds me of AOL back in the day, and we all know what a stroke of vision that was.
There already is a mechanism to avoid using the Google Voice voice mail system and use the built in iPhone VVM system. Give out your iPhone phone number instead of your GV phone number. The GV voice mail system only works for calls made to your Google Voice phone number. Calls to your iPhone number will go to your iPhone VVM. Alternatively, you can change your GV acct settings not to include your iPhone as one of the phones to ring when someone calls your GV phone number.
It is only bypassed or replaced if your calls use your GV phone number. You can install the GV app or GV mobile or the other third party GV apps and still use your iphone VVM.
Thank god someone else understands what GV is and is not.
What GV is not:
It does not touch or bypass the iPhone VVM in any way shape or form.
It does not touch or change the iPhone dialer in any way shape or form.
It does not change the iPhone SMS app in any way shape or form.
It does not do anything with your Address book that's not already allowed and that includes coping your contacts to your online GV account. Heck, your allowed to do this now with Yahoo so why not GV? Oh wait, you can since the GV address book is the same as your gmail address book. For those that don't like that then don't use GV or any other cloud application.
What GV is:
It gives you direct control of your GV phone number.
It lets you access Voice Mail messages from your GV number. You still have to use VVM to get messages from your iPhone number.
It allows you to send SMS messages to and from your GV phone number.
It lets GV place calls for you by calling your phone when your making a call through GV. Since you still get charged minutes for the inbound call, at lease currently, your still being charged minutes.
Personally I think it's a bad way implement the feature. I suggest that Google change the feature so the Call button only calls your GV number then send the real number you want to call to GV using touch-tones. If GV did it this way I think Apple would be in really hot water with the FCC because using third party carriers for LD is totally legal and protected. Doing the call back does however give Apple the out to say that your getting calls for free but only if the carrier gives free incoming calls which they currently don't.
So is this the beginning of the end? Why do we even make phone calls over a cell network? When 4G comes out make it data only and do all phone calls via VOIP...
^^^^
THIS!
And just like the POTS providers have all but dried up and blown away in the wind so too will the day when Cell phone networks as we know them now. A nickel for every IM I get all because I don't wanna spend $30 per month translation $360.00 per year so I can IM 'gonna be late for dinner' every once in a blue moon... Then when I don't pay their IM extortion money I'm forced to pay for however many SPAM IMs I get in a month x2 phones, its actually not bad now but I'm sure it'll get worse. Strange how it's actually in the wireless carriers best interest in the to promote SPAM IMs to its subscriber base.
Yea I'm just waiting on the day when the wireless carriers get theirs.
Dave
It lets GV place calls for you by calling your phone when your making a call through GV. Since you still get charged minutes for the inbound call, at lease currently, your still being charged minutes.
To be honest (and I'm a huge fan of GV) here is (what I think) is the major sticking point with GV and why AT&T is scared to death of it.
- I have a family plan with 3 numbers 2 iPhones and one for my father in-law.
- I also have a home VOIP line with vonage...
I've used the VOIP line as my home number since the 1st year Vonage was available. I even transfered my Bell Atlantic (Ma Bell) number to Vonage so my relatives family and friends etc didn't need to update their address books.
So when I got my wireless plan I get free in network calling as well as free calls to my HOME phone number (I believe this is still accurate I haven't checked my bills in a long time).
Now enter Grand Central... I got that back before Google purchased it and renamed it GV.
I have a NC number attached to that (for the moment) simply because I've got some family in that state and figured it would be nice if they had in in state number for them to call me.
So as thing stand today the wireless companies shouldn't have any problems with GV.
1 - Cell-to-Cell in network - FREE
2 - Cell-to-Home - FREE
3 - Home-to-Cell - FREE
3 - Cell-to-NonATTWS-Number minutes start getting charged/deducted.
4 - Land-to-Cell (other than my home #) minutes start getting charged/deducted.
The day GV allows me to xfer my home number away from Vonage to them here's what could happen.
1 - Cell-to-Cell in network - FREE
2 - Cell-to-Home - FREE
3 - Home-to-Cell - FREE
4 - Cell-to-NonATTWS-Number FREE*
5 - Land-to-Cell (other than my home #) partially/possibly FREE**
* Here's where the problem can crop up. Using a native iPhone GV-App instead of Apples address-book I can get around using ANY minutes ON ALL OUTBOUND cell calls.
How?
Well the GV app (it looks just like an address book) calls my GV # (which ATTWS recognizes as my home number) and then dials my requested number from there. As far as AT&T is concerned I'm calling my home and no minutes are being used. For me, I can call home and then re-call-out to anywhere in the US once I make the initial connection with my home number. The GV iPhone App is what makes is seamless and painless for the user... They just pick Aunt Sally like they always would and GV would do the rest behind the scenes and with only minimal added wait time.
What does the person who I'm calling sees? My HOME NUMBER (since it was ported to GV) so as far as they know I'm just calling them from home and they wouldn't be confused by seeing a strange new number.
** To further reduce you're minutes used simply tell the people who call YOU the most (on your cell) to PLEASE ALWAYS CALL MY HOME NUMBER (now attached to GV) and it will automatically ring my cell phone numbers. So no matter where I happen to be, when someone calls my home number I'll get the call and that call (since its coming from my home number) isn't costing me any minutes.
Now none of this can actually happen because GV doesn't (yet) allow number porting but once they do this will be a huge blow to their universe.
The wireless industry would only have one way to retaliate and that would be to start charing minutes to calls made to the customers home phone and I'm not sure how well that would go over.
Now all of this might seem complex, but it really isn't since the magic is in the GV iPhone App (and the ability to dial out from your GV number). Using it looks just like any other address book but the only difference is this:
Instead of directly dialing the persons # you selected it does this:
Dials your GV phone # --> presses a code telling the GV network you want to make an outbound call --> dials the number you chose from the address-book --> the call connects
You click on Aunt Sally and the app does the rest.
This isn't anything that only GOOGLE could pull off either... Vonage, MagicJack or any other VOIP provider could provide this very same service if they had the vision, desire and/or testicular fortitude (balls) to do so. Look... its really simple... this type of functionality isn't simply going to go back in the bottle... It will happen and somebody is going to implement it in such a way where Apple would have much less of an objection to reject it.
Finally, I could bruteforce a solution that doesn't need any new software... I could simply change the phone numbers to do it manually unless Apple has limits on number length and/or non-numeric characters.
For examle:
Old: J.Doe # 801-555-1212
New: J.Doe# my-home-number,code-activating-dial-out,,801-555-1212 (the commas are normally considered 'pauses')
OR if Apple simply had a 'dialing prefix' in their settings you could put the: my-home-number,code,, right in there and then you wouldn't have to change your address book at all BUT I wouldn't hold my breath for that setting to appear. lol
Now with that simple change all those minute gobbling calls I make to J.Doe every day are now using ZERO minutes.
Simple? Elegant?? Easy for the average user??? No, but for those tech savvy ppl it'll save em a bundle.
Dave