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 ]

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by FormerARSgm

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!).

Originally Posted by FormerARSgm

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?

Originally Posted by FormerARSgm

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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]

Fuck. Apple.

[Roc Ingersol]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by FormerARSgm

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

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.

[Kolchak]

Originally Posted by FormerARSgm

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]

Originally Posted by Icesnake

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...

[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]

Originally Posted by AdamIIGS

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]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

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.

Originally Posted by Abster2core

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.

Originally Posted by Abster2core

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.

Originally Posted by Abster2core

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.

Originally Posted by Abster2core

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]

Originally Posted by luckyw

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]

Originally Posted by Dogcow

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

so true! whatever happened to it?

[Gazoobee]

Originally Posted by w00master

...

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

...and monogamy is about promiscuity.

[Tofino]

Originally Posted by Icesnake

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]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Tulkas

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]

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

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.