or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple pulling Google Voice-enabled iPhone apps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple pulling Google Voice-enabled iPhone apps - Page 3

post #81 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


As for GOOGLE, it must be nice to make money basically off the backs of others, and in particular, Apple.

You mean the way Apple is making money off of the music industry by using their media to sell more iPods? The way Apple is making money off of every web site in the world by providing users with a browser on the iPhone but not paying the website owners? See, these arguments are ridiculous.

Google is not making any money off of Apple through GV, any more than they are making it off of Dell (i.e. when you run GV web app on your PC) or off of Nortel when you use the GV call forwarding service from your landline.

One could argue they are making money off of AT&T, since AT&T is loosing their very lucrative long distance profits when people use GV. But, that was accepted by courts and the industry many years ago....carriers have to allow customers to use alternative LD providers, because otherwise the carriers will abuse their position and massively overcharge for their service. Just as the have been shown to do with SMS...but then you have already repeatedly stated your support for their abusive pricing of SMS.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #82 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post


He works(/ed) in the industry and has helped develop marketing for the very practices he is defending. Perceptions may be thusly skewed. Take with a gigantic grain of salt.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #83 of 143
Dumb question. What does GV do and how does it work?

I've heard a lot of buzz about it but I honestly don't know how it works and what it does.
post #84 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

I expect that from one who wants everything for nothing. As you said before, I gather a lot of things are out of your price range.

Who doesn't want everything for nothing? You'd have to be a complete fool to not think this way. I mean, stealing aside, wanting everything for as close to nothing as possible is the most logical way to think.

btw i wont get into my "price range" but rest assured, if I wanted the most expensive thing apple offered, I could pay for it in cold hard cash.
post #85 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

He works(/ed) in the industry and has helped develop marketing for the very practices he is defending. Perceptions may be thusly skewed. Take with a gigantic grain of salt.

Well, the iPhone's exclusive carrier in Spain (Telefonica) had $10.8 billion NET profit last year and $2.4 billion in Q1 2009, so when I read this defense of carrier I laugh
post #86 of 143
If this is AT&T mandated, it sets a dangerous precedent I think. It's one thing to outlaw content like Sling on AT&T's 3G, it's another to not even allow apps to exist and work over wifi.
post #87 of 143
This may be an obligation between Apple and AT&T pursuant to their exclusivity contract. Permitting a phone call that circumvents AT&T's cellular service may be a contract violation. Assuming the contract terms between Apple and AT&T are likely confidential, neither side would be permitted to acknowledge the true reason for pulling these applications. It is common practice to lock phones to specific carriers under exclusivity deals between phone makers and cellular providers. This would easily fall under that kind of clause between Apple and AT&T, especially since AT&T is subsidizing the phones. This should not be a surprise to anyone, just like tethering.
Walter Rowe Photography
Columbia, Maryland - USA
Reply
Walter Rowe Photography
Columbia, Maryland - USA
Reply
post #88 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What Apple is doing here is troubling. Looks like they are making an inadvisable trade-off for the short run. Hopefully, competition will handle it in the long-run: if GV does what it says it does effectively, and does take off on other mobile operating systems, handsets, and carriers, Apple will be forced to eat crow.

Driving revenue (and profit) down is what competition is all about, nothing unusual there. One can only stop that for so long.

As to "call quality," people can decide for themselves and make appropriate trade-offs between quality and cost. They're not collectively stupid.

Duplication of services should be thrown out as justifiable deniability. Many apps offer the same service from different companies, is Apple going to pick one they like best & throw out all the rest?

I think Apps like that shouldn't be banned, but if AT&T wants to restrict them let it come with some sort of monthly charge from AT&T, sort of a "you can use this technology but what costs us costs you."

I don't have any problem with any company trying to make a profit, if they didn't then they'd go out of business. Companies don't make cool technology or provide cool services for free & people who think they should being unrealistic or just plain stupid.
post #89 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprowe View Post

This may be an obligation between Apple and AT&T pursuant to their exclusivity contract. Permitting a phone call that circumvents AT&T's cellular service may be a contract violation. Assuming the contract terms between Apple and AT&T are likely confidential, neither side would be permitted to acknowledge the true reason for pulling these applications. It is common practice to lock phones to specific carriers under exclusivity deals between phone makers and cellular providers. This would easily fall under that kind of clause between Apple and AT&T, especially since AT&T is subsidizing the phones. This should not be a surprise to anyone, just like tethering.

Could even be a contract violation for the end user, remember that you do sign a cell agreement, which outlines terms of service & legal rights regarding your service. People just get mad when no one is willing to own up to the truth about why those apps are banned. Least they can do is be upfront about it.

Developers making the apps ought to know where they could potentially get blocked as well. Apple should have a pre-submission for developers where they can get their application design plans approved before they even begin a project & waste all those hours of time.
post #90 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Dumb question. What does GV do and how does it work?

I've heard a lot of buzz about it but I honestly don't know how it works and what it does.

It is a lot of things. if you go to voice.google.com you can watch videos and read descriptions of all of the features. In short, it is a calling service.

Through their website, you can place calls, listen to your voice mail, read your voice mail transcribed. Their primary claim to fame, was that they allowed you to group all of your phone numbers into one phone number which they provide (you choose it). You then provide your GV phone number as your only number to people. When they call that number, it will ring any or all of the phone numbers that you have added to your profile. You can select what phones ring, depending on who is calling, when they call comes in, etc. From your own phone, landline or mobile, you can call a local GV phone number, select the option to place a call, enter a phone number and GV will connect to that number and connect you into the call. They currently offer free long distance to any number from and to the continental US.

The GV apps for the iPhone streamlined the outbound calling process. Other than trying to kill competition for AT&T's LD service by making it more difficult for customers to use, there is no really compelling reason for banning these apps.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #91 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by wprowe View Post

This may be an obligation between Apple and AT&T pursuant to their exclusivity contract. Permitting a phone call that circumvents AT&T's cellular service may be a contract violation. Assuming the contract terms between Apple and AT&T are likely confidential, neither side would be permitted to acknowledge the true reason for pulling these applications. It is common practice to lock phones to specific carriers under exclusivity deals between phone makers and cellular providers. This would easily fall under that kind of clause between Apple and AT&T, especially since AT&T is subsidizing the phones. This should not be a surprise to anyone, just like tethering.

Certainly, it would seem to be Apple acting on AT&T's directives. Whether because of contractual obligations or just pacifying their partner by screwing their customers is not clear.

GV doesn't really circumvent their cellular service. You still call out on their voice network. But, you call a local number and then have access to cheap/free long distance on google's dime. Maybe their app would have allowed true VoIP calling, but that could easily be limited to Wifi only, exactly as other VoIP apps are. Right now, there is nothing keeping you from using GV service from your iPhone. Call GV, place the call and go. You can also use the web site to access other features. The apps made all of this easier and gave you central access to some of the other features. The official GV app would have probably made it even easier and exposed even more features.

This was just a dumb decision that negatively impacts their end users. No really debate about that. Those making excuses for the behavior haven't really put forward any cohesive argument, just nuthugger "AT&T and Apple made the decision so it must be right" type of drivel.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #92 of 143
How can ATT be charging someone on an iPod Touch 0.20 per text via AIM? There is no sim card so how do they know who you are or where to send the bill or what credit card to charge? The AIM app itself has nothing to do with ATT so other than the cost of buying the app (or using the free version) I don't understand how you could be bill for it. Now if you received a message from someone via AIM on your iPhone and it notified you via SMS then that would make sense as it is just like getting any other message.
post #93 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

It must be nice to be born in an era when somebody else has paid the Piper to do and benefit from most of the things we do today.

And then to demand that everything connected to it be free or let somebody develop a vehicle so that freeloaders can sponge on the creativity and work of others.

As for, "SMS messages which cost almost nothing," perhaps you, as a IT genius, could illustrate how you could build the infrastructure to your for-free-designed system.

http://communication.howstuffworks.c...s_tutorial.htm

And just to make it quite clear, I would like to pay less for a lot of things. However, there are countries that thrive on copying the works of others. I would rather live here and realize that there is a cost for such freedom.

The idea that everybody is ripping everybody off and all the time, including Apple, suggests that perhaps relocation is better choice for a lot of the futures here.

As for GOOGLE, it must be nice to make money basically off the backs of others, and in particular, Apple.

As others have said, do I even need to go into how iPods take money right from the music industry? How many people are buying those 80GB and 120GB iPods who paid for all of that music? Should we lock down iPods to only playing music downloaded from the iTunes store? Apple sure doesn't seem to mind.

One of the selling points the iPhone and iPod Touch has is the app store. Developers are doing Apple a favor by creating good applications that entice people to buy the hardware to use the application on (the iPhone in this case). Apple gives them a cut of the money they make by selling it, or in Google's case, people are using Google's services. Nobody's suddenly stealing ATT's service by NOT using their text messaging service. If you aren't using the service, then why would you pay for it? ATT/Apple are forcing people into using their service. If you use the 3G network, you pay for it! If you use ATT minutes, you pay for it! If you use SMS messaging, pay for it! But if you aren't using those things, or using someone else's services, then why would you pay for it? If ATT doesn't want people to use other services, then they need to compete in terms of service and pricing.

Obviously building an infrastructure isn't free, so that means price hikes and rip-offs are a-okay?

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings...ng.cfm?id=3917

http://mynewsjunkie.com/2009/06/15/c...g-price-hikes/

Whether you agree with this or not, it is widely accepted/believe that companies make a (possibly unfair) killing off of SMS messages.

If you want to pay whatever prices anyone charges you, you're more than free to do it! For those who feel we're potentially getting ripped off, we don't have to pay for that service, and use another service that allows us to do what we want which may cost less or nothing at all. It's called competition, it's a wonderful thing. That's why Apple has an App STORE. You can pick and choose what you want to buy.

You seem to be taking all of this awfully personally. o_O. "You damn kids grew up in so and so age, taking things for advantage!". "If you don't like it, don't bother trying to change it! Just go to another country!".
post #94 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

It is a lot of things. if you go to voice.google.com you can watch videos and read descriptions of all of the features. In short, it is a calling service.

Through their website, you can place calls, listen to your voice mail, read your voice mail transcribed. Their primary claim to fame, was that they allowed you to group all of your phone numbers into one phone number which they provide (you choose it). You then provide your GV phone number as your only number to people. When they call that number, it will ring any or all of the phone numbers that you have added to your profile. You can select what phones ring, depending on who is calling, when they call comes in, etc. From your own phone, landline or mobile, you can call a local GV phone number, select the option to place a call, enter a phone number and GV will connect to that number and connect you into the call. They currently offer free long distance to any number from and to the continental US.

The GV apps for the iPhone streamlined the outbound calling process. Other than trying to kill competition for AT&T's LD service by making it more difficult for customers to use, there is no really compelling reason for banning these apps.

Watched the video. Pretty cool stuff.
post #95 of 143
The more I think about it, while it very well could have been at AT&S behest that Apple banned these apps, maybe it really was simply Apple doing it for their own interests.

If it was because of AT&T, it is pretty clear they did it because GV would compete against them for long distance calling. But, since with or without the apps you can still use the GV outbound call forwarding service, this doesn't seem like a rational decision. It may have been, but it doesn't make sense, since it doesn't in anyway accomplish what they seek to prevent. It just blocks apps that make it easier.

But, GV offers more than outbound call forwarding. They offer a very advanced voice mail system. You can browse, listen, read your voice mails. You can get email notifications of pending emails and I assume the official GV app would have push notifications of voice mail. This is basically Visual VoiceMail on steroids. Who loses out if iPhone users drop VVM and start using GV voice mail? Certainly the carrier (AT&T) would lose the very high margins they currently maintain on VVM. But, Apple would also lose out. VVM required every carrier to purchase and deploy very expensive VVM servers and whatever other infrastructure is required. They purchase this from Apple and probably pay Apple based on number of subscribed users. If users start using GV voice mail, then the carriers will not be paying Apple as much. So, the decision to ban these apps might have come from Apple entirely with no input from AT&T. Apple's statement of duplication of features of the built in phone app make more sense in this context.

Still a dick move.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #96 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post


..............Is Google Voice the end-all be-all service everyone should have? Probably not. Is it even the future? Who knows. But the fact that innovations like these are being completely stifled and snuffed out before they even have a chance is senseless. ....

The services that Google Voice is providing are not new. They have been innovations a decade ago. These services have been introduced by small carriers in 2000 here in the US . The big carriers never really picked up on them - no vision. Google Voice is nice and handy for people but it really flies when it is used by a carrier or if it is fully integrated into the Android OS, however. When Google bought Grandcentral it made sense because it looked like that they were planning to become a carrier... What will the future be?
post #97 of 143
As a lifetime Apple customer, I am shocked and deeply disappointed by this decision. Since the iPhone came out, I have been an evangelist for phone and most of my friends have it now. Now, I regret being so excited about the iPhone. The truth is that Apple is willing to sacrifice loyal customers by banning GREAT applications because...... Oh wait, we have no clue why because THEY WONT SAY.

Apple has great products. But if there is one thing that can bring them down it is by turning their loyal base off by cutting off basic functionality.

Sign this petition with your Twitter Account to let Apple know how much they screwed up: http://twitition.com/xh8jk

Hey Apple: TTYN!
post #98 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

You still charged for inbound SMS. This is no different from AOL IM. This is Apple at work and not ATT&T. Google voice is already out for Blackberry, which ATT has many models, and is coming for WM, with ATT has dozens of models.

No, you're charged for inbound SMS if you choose to be. Google Voice has an option that doesn't forward inbound SMS to your true mobile number. Clear the box for free SMS.
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
post #99 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

You are insane! Verizon is 10X more resrtrictive than AT&T. They cripple Bluetooth on their phones and tell the handset manufacturers what Apps can be on the phone. Apple tried to work with Verizon first before they went with ATT. Verizon wanted to control the iPhone and limit a lot of it's capabilities. AT&T is far from perfect bit they aren't nearly as draconian in protecting their antiquated business model.

IMO I think Apple would maintain some significant control over what gets on their phone. Also, we all now know Verizon is kicking themselves in the can for not going with apple, and, now is trying to cut a deal(rumor). Even if we break even on control issues with ATT vs Verizon, you get a supposed better network, AND, much better plans. My beef with ATT: asking for too much and offering too little. Instead of nickle and diming us, ATT should iphone users a bit more appreciation. If disgruntled iphone users left, what would ATT be left with?!?
post #100 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksodos View Post

This is a great decision by Apple.

When fanboism/brand boot-licking reach that state of self-harm mindset, it is scary...
post #101 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakiChan View Post

Just out of curiosity, how do I dial my contacts from Safari? Not all of us keep all our contacts on Google.

I like the GV Mobile app. I am very mad at Apple for killing it. This action worries me and makes me think perhaps I shouldn't have bought a 3GS.

If you have a Google Voice account already, you'd know that you load up your contacts into GV, then it can connect the both of you with the click of a button.

Also, so you bought an iPhone 3GS only because you MIGHT be able to use the GV Mobile app? I don't think so.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #102 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksodos View Post

People are stupid

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That's a pretty arrogant statement

Arrogant perhaps.. but more often than not quite accurate!
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #103 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

If you have a Google Voice account already, you'd know that you load up your contacts into GV, then it can connect the both of you with the click of a button.

..and hence the comment "Not all of us keep all our contacts on Google". GV Mobile allowed you to select you contacts from your phone. Now, he will have to. Not a biggie, but answering his valid question with sarcasm is just petty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Also, so you bought an iPhone 3GS only because you MIGHT be able to use the GV Mobile app? I don't think so.

No, but maybe being crippled in this way is enough to not want it. There are lots of individual ways Apple could further cripple the iPhone/Apps that would be deal killers for people, without being their sole criteria for having purchased the iPhone initially. Especially functionality that was there/allowed when he bought it.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #104 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

When fanboism/brand boot-licking reach that state of self-harm mindset, it is scary...

As somebody who considered himself one of the biggest Apple fans, I can't understand how ANYBODY can justify this. Apple is stifling innovation and basic functionality. This really is disgusting.
post #105 of 143
Do people own or rent their iPhones? Which is it? If it is the former, by what right does Apple have to enforce any use of the phone after it is sold? If it is the latter, then all their contracts are based on misrepresentation of the contract. Everyone I know thinks they own their phones. As for controlling the usage of the network, that would be something that AT&T would liekly have a right to do, but not Apple, but they likely couldn't do it in such a clearly anti-competitive fashion without eliciting the attention of the Justice Dept. The only way tht they are able to do so now, is by having Apple accomplish these "enforcements" for them as a third party through their iTunes system. I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me that this raises both issues of tort and conspiracy to evade Federal law. Where is Obama's Justice Department? The one that was going to give us change we could believe in? The one that was going to stop letting the corporations run roughshod over American consumers?
post #106 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by L. Angry View Post

As somebody who considered himself one of the biggest Apple fans, I can't understand how ANYBODY can justify this. Apple is stifling innovation and basic functionality. This really is disgusting.

Agreed. Huge Apple fan and have used their products since my dad brought home the Apple IIe many, many years ago. And this move is openly dirty.

Whether this decision was for Apple's benefit or AT&T's, it is without question a move that negatively impacts customers. Some customer seem to like being told how to use their products and services that they pay for. or being denied rights that have been legally granted to them. It's like, as long as Apple/AT&T tell them it is ok, then it must be ok. Sheep.

Apple Fan != nut hugging, blind, naive or stupid. For most anyway.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #107 of 143
This is not what I'd expect from Apple...

If Phil Schiller gave his personal okay on the project (if that's actually true) it's really in bad taste for Apple to now pull a 180 only after Google finished developing the app.

Apple will be loosing supporters over moves like this that you can bank on.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #108 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

This is not what I'd expect from Apple...

If Phil Schiller gave his personal okay on the project (if that's actually true) it's really in bad taste for Apple to now pull a 180 only after Google finished developing the app.

Apple will be loosing supporters over moves like this that you can bank on.

Dave

I will definitely consider an Android device for my next phone. All things being equal, I prefer to buy Apple. If Apple is going to prevent me from using a service that I was very intent on using when available in Canada, then I have to look at alternatives. I won't jump to any old crappy alternative, but Android and the Pre are both looking very strong. They might be strong enough, that given the artificial limitations being enforced by Apple, it would only make sense to consider them.

If they did kill it because of VVM competition, they are right that I would consider dropping VVM from my plan if the GV VVM is as good or better. This doesn't make them then killing potential competition right. They should have instead considered improving on their already great VVM service.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #109 of 143
Has it occurred to anyone that Google Voice was taken off not because it duplitcates services already on the iPhone, but actually services that are still planned to come in the near future? Maybe as part of Mobile Me or something?

That could explain why Skype, Truphone which are far more popular and available than Google Voice etc are still around...
post #110 of 143
Syncman will sync your Mac Address book with GMail effortlessly. I didn't sync contacts with Gmail until I got my Google Voice number. I update my iphone, it syncs to MobileMe, then I have SyncMan set to sync every hour to GMail (you can choose one way, bi-directional, etc. with many options) to reflect the change.

Works great.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #111 of 143
This could be a good thing for Google's Android if they allow it on that phone, but, as the carriers are probably the ones who object, it's unlikely Google would be able to include GV with an Android phone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSnarkmeister View Post

Do people own or rent their iPhones? Which is it?

You essentially own your iPhone, but rent the phone service that makes it work. Without the phone service, it's basically an iPod Touch.
post #112 of 143
This is so infuriating. I am a regular user of Google Voice and of the iPhone, and I want to be able to use them together. This kind of infuriatingly anti-customer, anti-competitive behavior by Apple (colluding or not with AT&T) in pulling Google Voice apps will drive me away from the iPhone and into more open platforms, like that of Android.
post #113 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

This could be a good thing for Google's Android if they allow it on that phone, but, as the carriers are probably the ones who object, it's unlikely Google would be able to include GV with an Android phone.


It is already available.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #114 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

..and hence the comment "Not all of us keep all our contacts on Google". GV Mobile allowed you to select you contacts from your phone. Now, he will have to. Not a biggie, but answering his valid question with sarcasm is just petty.

My reply was not sarcastic. Reread.

No, but maybe being crippled in this way is enough to not want it. There are lots of individual ways Apple could further cripple the iPhone/Apps that would be deal killers for people, without being their sole criteria for having purchased the iPhone initially. Especially functionality that was there/allowed when he bought it.



The poster had already purchased an iPhone. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #115 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Landnsea View Post

This is so infuriating. I am a regular user of Google Voice and of the iPhone, and I want to be able to use them together. This kind of infuriatingly anti-customer, anti-competitive behavior by Apple (colluding or not with AT&T) in pulling Google Voice apps will drive me away from the iPhone and into more open platforms, like that of Android.

You can still use them together, just not by using this app (which was not created by Google anyway).

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #116 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

You essentially own your iPhone, but rent the phone service that makes it work. Without the phone service, it's basically an iPod Touch.

I have two iPhones on my desk I have to unlock after each OS upgrade. They are iPhones without contracts (upgrade to 3G then to 3GS). You would think it would be ok to continue to use them as iPods and update the OS but not so. Sometimes Apple sucks.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #117 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

As for GOOGLE, it must be nice to make money basically off the backs of others, and in particular, Apple.

I'm puzzled why you say that, it doesn't make sense. I think you left out a couple steps showing how it hurts Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight View Post

GV is not a VOIP app.

If not, why is an app necessary for this?

Sorry for the ignorance, but I'm not finding much info about it in action.
post #118 of 143
The more I think about this, the more likely it seems that Apple did this in order not to face legal action from AT&T for violating the carrier's contract. Apple presumably agreed that it would not allow iPhone apps that would directly compete with AT&T's phone and messaging services. Too bad Apple didn't have the guts to fight for this one: users can get most of the same services on the Web, just as they will do with Google Latitude, but some useful aspects of the Google Voice service will thereby be crippled. AT&T doesn't ultimately gain anything from this decision, nor does Apple, except that both companies will incur users' understandable frustration and wrath.
post #119 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Why is an app necessary for this?

An app is NOT necessary to use Google Voice.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #120 of 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Forgotten? It's new. How could it be forgotten when it's still in limited beta?

It's not that new of a project. It used to be called Grand Central, apparently launched in 2006. Not that it mattered, it really didn't take hold. Very few people even heard of it, much less actually got it. It got a new name and a little marketing effort this year. I wonder if this invitation-only type system is just a bad idea. GV sounds interesting, but I'm certainly not going to go begging for an invitation to the system.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple pulling Google Voice-enabled iPhone apps