FCC investigates Apple, AT&T for Google Voice app rejection - Page 2

I can't believe you guys really want the friggin' FCC in charge of approving apps for smartphones.

It's not entirely clear to me that even if (1) the "sense of entitlement of some iPhone users is just amazing" and (2) "[p]eople don't have a constitutional right to have an iPhone and a GV apps", this investigation is necessarily a bad idea.

There are serious problems brewing with regard to the App store. A lot of it has to do with the app-rejection process. Many developers find the process arbitrary and opaque. DaringFireball.net has some very troubling pieces documenting this.

If the FCC investigation does nothing more than shed light on the process, that'll be helpful. There are good developers leaving the App store. The App store ought to be the place where all the top talent WANTS to be, and NOT because they hate it but are willing to swallow their bile because there's money to be made. We should want loyalty, not resentment. Is the App store doing well right now? Yes. Is that a reason to ignore a serious problem until even you can see it? No, because by then there might not be enough goodwill left for the devs who left to come back. It won't matter to me HOW many billions of 99 cent apps are out there, if the cleverest apps leave the iPhone platform and go to Android or Pre.

I personally dislike government intrusion, if it's a matter of weaker products trying to get the government to hobble a stronger competitor. But here... there's something wrong going on in the App store. Let light be shed on it. That may well be enough.

Tell that to all those elitist game console developers who swore up and down that they would never develop for the lowly wii console --- and then have to backtrack because silly mini-games on the wii are making 10 times more money than they do on their precious superior PS3 platform.

Tell that to 99% of the population who has to punch in to a regular 9 to 5 job --- which most of them hate.

This is real life --- if they don't want to develop on certain platforms because it's beneath them --- it's their choice to become a starving artist.

That's not it at all. Read this, for instance.


This shouldn't be happening. Apps that were approved got removed, without explanation. Developers poured blood, sweat and tears into these apps. I don't think it's too much to say that developers deserve guidelines that will help them understand which apps are going to be okay and which to avoid.

When I say "this shouldn't be happening", I mean that not only should the app rejection process not be happening like this, but Apple shouldn't be pissing off good developers like this. The developer stevenf who wrote that isn't an asshole, from what I can tell. He's a guy who really wants to write cool apps, but he's fed up with bad behavior on the part of Apple.

I am the first to applaud Apple when it does right. But we're not doing Apple any favors by defending them when they're behaving badly.

If Apple looked like it was trying to do the right thing (or was making changes in that direction) I'd be right with you, wanting the FCC to back off.

Just wait until you see the federal guidelines for this! Until the approval process is measured in years, because that ruling for a particular new feature in smartphone got tied up in some obscure subcommittee chaired by a politician with an axe to grind!

When the political winds shift back to the right (and they will, before they shift again to the left) and some new appointees from the other party take over the FCC, imagine how many apps will suddenly get pulled. Oh, of course, it'll be (a) in the name of decency, (b) to stop the terrorists, (c) for the children...

I'm guessing that most of you looking forward to serving your FCC overlords as your saviors probably don't have a lot of experience dealing with government bureaucrats...

As they say, "Good luck with that!"

Apple should be able to reject whatever they want. It's their store. However rejections should be consistent and fair. (Which this GV thing is not) What Apple shouldn't be able to do is only allow App Store apps on the iPhone. It's not their iPhone.

Why doesn't Apple update Mac OS X and create a MacApp Store, and only apps from that store can run on any Mac?

Maybe the FCC will force Apple to recognize that an iPhone buyer owns his iPhone so that he can install whatever software he pleases on his own property.

By denying the ownership of iPhones, and selecting what an owner can install on his iPhone, Apple violates both property law and anti-trust provisions, not to mention consumer protection laws and, possibly, FCC regulations.

I applaud the FCC investigation and hope that it will bring a welcomed change in Apple's arbitrary and unlawful conduct.

The current AT&T is connected to the old AT&T in name only. Nothing else. SBC bought the remnants of AT&T (mainly its cellular business) and adopted its name. There is no continuity between the old AT&T management and the new at&t management. So your nice conspiracy story about at&t involvement with the US government going back a very long time is basically fiction.

As to Obama making a bigger mess of the country faster than Bush ever did, well that's just partisan sore-loser speak. The record of ineptness and incompetence of the Bush administration is without equal. Failed foreign policy. Failed economic policy. Failed domestic policy. Failed environmental policy. Failed disaster relief policy. Failed everything.

The Bush administration has done nothing, NOTHING that has redounded to the benefit of the majority of the country. Name one. None. His close friends benefited a lot and got extremely wealthy but the rest of us got nothing. And don't say 'preventing a terrorist attack' because 9/11 happened during the Bush admin at a time when Clinton holdovers were warning them about Al Qaeda and the Bushies chose to ignore the threat because they wanted to play big power politics with China and Russia.

I'm so sick and tired of repiglicans who are so quick to rewrite history. What you think we're stupid and have already forgotten the havoc that president moron wreaked on this country? Before you guys start criticizing the current president, you should first apologize for voting the last one into office!

Do you know what a non sequitur is? Were you even trying to make sense? That's your argument, that life's a bitch? If you were smarter, you'd understand that argument can be applied to anything. I could apply it on my side. Let me do just that:

Whatever Apple & AT&T are doing behind the scenes with the app approval process, they've brought this scrutiny down upon themselves. Yeah, it IS real life. These two companies (one of which I adore) f'd around and got the Fed involved. THAT'S real life. It sucks and Apple & AT&T should have been smart enough to see this coming and avoid it. They didn't. Now the Fed is here. It takes awhile for them to come; it takes longer for them to leave. I remember Reagan's famous line "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

The nice thing is that involvement like this from the Fed is sometimes a warning that there's still time for you to do right. There are many very thoughtful articles being written right now about what's wrong with the App store. They all have a common theme. Are you gonna sling angry words around, with your eyes tightly closed, or are you gonna calm down and think that maybe these guys have a point.

(And as to your point that most people hate what they do for a living: you have the power to make changes in your life. And it doesn't have to be "bear it quietly" vs "leave and do something else quietly". When things are genuinely WRONG, you have the option to change them. Sheep only see 2 options. Men see the third. And just because someone bleats in an angry tone and make offensive non-sequiturs, that doesn't keep him from being counted among the sheep)

Classy.

Hopefully that's exactly what WON'T happen. I don't necessarily have a problem with an App review process. But the rules should be known in advance, should not be subject to whimsy, and when an app is rejected, there should be a way for the developer to find out why it was rejected and what he needs to do to make it right.

Most developers would be quite fine with that.

Now, Apple might opt to go the route of saying that the only restrictions are that your app isn't malware. I don't think anyone (dev or user) could complain about that. They might have tighter restrictions, saying that certain classes of app can't be put in the store (as indeed they've done). But the more restrictions they make, the more likely it'll be that someone will view them as anti-competitive. And it won't be up to you and me. It'll be up to politicians, whose decisions aren't always (or even often) well-informed and impartial of intent.

I think all Apple needs to do to make people happy is to be transparent and consistent with their decisions. Regarding AT&T, the internet has been rife with a lot of speculation, some of it seemingly pretty well thought out, and some of it more driven by tribal antipathy. The main thing I think the MIGHT be useful from the coming fiasco will be that we might learn what's happening behind the scenes. Somebody's making a hash of the app store. It'll be interesting to know who that is.

(And p.s.: Why do people keep slinging the phrase "anti-trust" around whenever something displeases them? This doesn't qualify. It's like in the 70s hearing people call things "crypto-fascist" at every slightest inconvenience </rant>)

lol brings back memories... digging out that SP episode...

AT&T is a monopoly how? I'm sure there are other carriers.
Apple is a monopoly how? I'm sure there are way more other phone manufacturers.

By offering the phone on one carrier only, it's as close to a monopoly as you can get.

You misunderstand. You can only monopolise a market, not a product! Any phone on a single carrier is an EXCLUSIVE and totally legal in most countries.

FCC is a bunch of nosey parkers. Maybe Steve Ballmer runs it.

Is there a "like" here just like Facebook? Good comment. I really want that to happen for the Macs.

ATNT is a monopoly.
Apple is not IMO.

I think the iPhone is the most over priced, over hyped and over controlled device known to mankind.

I absolutely refuse to spend nearly $100 a month (or more for some) for a phone that my computer and camera (paid for) does a thousand times better. Not to mention getting those annoying AT&T phone bills every month for two years! Getting yanked around by Apple and AT&T to boot!

Sure if I lived and worked in the city and couldn't do a 4 lb notebook slung over my shoulder then yes, perhaps I would need a iPhone.

But my $30 (paid for) flip phone only costs me $10-$15 a month in minutes depending upon use. Naturally if I'm using it more, I'm making more money so it's no bother to buy more minutes.

My phone fits easily in my jeans pocket, and by chance if it gets lost or fails, it's only a $30 phone, there are plenty more where it came from.

No contracts, no problems , no headaches.

Life is easy with less headaches, that's why I always bought Mac's.

Look at this latest headache the PC crowd has to deal with now, a permanent BIO root-kit installed on 60% of PC's out there.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3828


The iPhone is not for me, I've seen my friends get them, one got lost overboard, another has a shattered glass and another has been dropped and works, but looks like a truck ran over it.

I've learned with my previous iPods to just keep it in a case and handle it as little as possible, with the iPhone that's the opposite, it has a lot of things to do with it, therefore it's highly likely to get ruined.

Easy. Your statement says it all. You cannot afford the iPhone's monthly fees as you find it exorbitant and you dismiss it as over-hyped and over-priced. Did you see a previous survey on Appleinsider? Most people who own iPhones generate high incomes and have high affordability means. What makes you bash the iPhone?

I cant believe the injection of politics in this thread. The GOP are some bitter folk.

So when he ports the number to Google his SIM becomes inactive, breaks his contract and severs his link to AT&T, a number can't exist without somewhere to put it, goodbye pipe, dumb or otherwise.



So you put your number on a plan with another provider, port it to Google and end up in the same situation.

No SIM, no number, no pipe, well not with GSM anyway.

I understand your point because you can buy another phone on another carrier, I would completely agree if all phones were equal. But in this case it's as close to a monopoly as you can get (notice I never called it a monopoly)

WOOHOO... Go GOOGLE!

Hope Apple gets in trouble!!!!!

Approve phones? Yes. Approve other internal stuff related to the phone and users? NO WAY!

Oh my. I really hope that is never going to happen. Anybody realise FCC is suddenly stepping up checks on Apple? First the Google & Apple relationship. Now all these. Maybe Ballmer took over FCC and we didn't know it or FCC is unhappy that Apple has so much profit and 0 debts.

Right... we should let companies who are "too big to fail" fail. We should allow companies who caused the world economy to be on the brink of collapse continue to rake in billions of dollars embezzling money. Who needs laws anyway. Do away with the SEC. Lets give all our money to the rich power brokers. I'm sure it will trickle down, the same way salaries have been going down for years.
I'm amazed to hear people just be anti whatever the government does now, when it was perfectly fine to watch the country self destruct last year. Last year and the preceding 8 were totally different and in no way the administrations fault... I'm sure...
But its no use trying to rationalize with birthers either...

Too many in this thread are living in a utopian fantasy.

1. Apple is not the exclusive provider of the iPhone. AT&T is an partner and investor and has a legitimate claim to the iPhone. Apple is not a network carrier; they are a hardware manufacturer. The Mac is a totally different animal because it requires no network on which to operate. You are free to do with the hardware what you like, no subsidies, no restrictions. The iPhone would never have come to market without a carrier partner paying a substantial portion of the price of every phone. The carrier is the provider of the network and the services that run on it. Just because the hardware ships with the ability to view visual voicemail, surf the web, send MMS, sling TV, download movies, music, and apps, and make popcorn does not mean that the carrier has to allow those services on their network. If AT&T allows a service on one device that it invested in and not another, that is AT&T's choice. That is a business decision, not a violation of federal law. When a company offers a competitive service that can run on an AT&T subsidized phone, AT&T does not have to allow it on their device and service. They cannot do anything to stop the service, just stop it on their device at their discretion. It is available on other carriers and other phones, even phones from AT&T. That breaks no law of which I am aware. In fact, it is the essence of competition since you can vote with your dollars to support another carrier or buy another phone. Force Apple to have all the best services and features, and you lock out all competition from differentiating. What could be more anti-competitive than that?

2. Google does not make a cell phone and does not have a cellular network. They invest no money in subsidies and have no say as to what services a carrier must provide on a particular phone. At best, they are a software vendor. At best, they can write software for a particular device and hope that those who invest in that device will distribute that software and allow it to run on their service. If Google wants to make sure GV is available to all the people, they need to manufacture a phone, build out a cell network or make it a VOIP phone, become the service provider and all that entails, then compete with the cell phone industry on even footing. As long as their service requires someone else's network, data stream, approval, and devices, Google has no legal leg to stand on.

3. This last point is simple. The market is working. People are complaining about Apple and AT&T and are voting with their dollars. Alternatives have sprung up and no one has tried to stop them. Everyone is trying to copy the best parts of what Apple did and change the bits they don't like. So far, no one has been particularly successful, but not because Apple or AT&T interfered. The market is working. Most tech journalists and podcasters I listen to on a regular basis spew nothing but vitriol at the iPhone. They are publicly complaining about coverage or app rejection or lack of a pet feature etc. Everyday, Apple is being dragged into court for some nonexistent infraction. Apple is getting a free ride from no one, including Apple fanboys. People are publicly leaving the iPhone and embracing alternatives. The drumbeat for a real iPhone competitor is louder than ever. The market is working. We do not need government intervention to stop legal business practices, even if they are distasteful; we need better competitors. If the market didn't work, there would have never been an iPhone sensation in the first place. The only way they are stifling competition of other phones and services is by being superior. That is change I can believe in.

They don't subsidize it...

They simply spread the payment period. You are still paying for the whole price of the device, but over a period of 2 years.

Its basically a loan...

It could never be as repugnant as the Bush 8 years - Bush's friends and cronies plundering the government, getting rich while the housing market burns. Selling off our natural resources, giving tax breaks to multi-millionaires while taking health care away from millions. Not to mention throwing out the constitution and wiretapping all of our phone calls (helped enormously by AT&T). And all because "God showed me the way." Disgusting. Bush dug us a hole so deep it would be really hard for anybody to get us out of it.

I would suggest reading "Rise and Fall of Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. During the decline, there was plunder of the Roman Treasury, senseless wars with the barbarian tribes - mostly Goths. These wars were wagged by mercenaries. This outsourcing basically taught the barbarians Roman war technology, organization, etc. Other outsourcing they did was slavery. When Alaric laid siege to Rome and then sacked it, there were 5 slaves for every Roman in the city... who turned against their masters. Their equivalent of Obama was the Emperor Vespasian who was a non-Roman. I do not know who their equivalent of Bush was? Any suggestions?

Hi Mac Voyer,

Great comments.

Thank you

P.S. Could you break posting into shorter paragraphs? Your points are well thought out, but your styling makes it difficult to read easily.

Wow....

Not sure how to feel about this one. Apple being looked at over its behavior managing this App store...

Happy:

- Cause I happen to be a big fan of GV and thik it will become enormous in the months/years to come

Sad:

- Cause the idea of the FCC stepping in to examine a companies behavior is NEVER a good thing

I was afraid this would (eventually) happen... I hoped that it wouldn't but Apple really let me down. The app store is a fantastic idea and Apples implementation is clearly a good one (for the most part). Unfortunately the old adage "Absolute power, corrupts absolutely" is alive and well in the halls of Apple. This is not a exactly a shock knowing Steve's reputation.

The problem is, due to a really STUPID and BONEHEADED (imho) decision on Apples part they have the FCC crawling up their assets with a microscope in one hand and a pitchfork in the other! This could turn out very badly for Apple and something I would have never wished for them, but they brought this down on themselves and now they have have to live with it.

Apple had a really good thing going and then they played 'God All Powerful' one too many times. How sad... Lets hope they learn something from this... (yea I know... be we can still hope)

D

No it isn't.

If it were, you would have had to pay off the balance of the 2-year contract in order to get the new iteration. Just like you would have to do if you wanted to upgrade you car before you paid it off.

In my humble opinion, the Obama administration is doing the best it can with what it's been giving. Perhaps the hole Republicans and Democrats have built together is too deep to dig out of. Perhaps whether we pass a huge stimulus package or did nothing at all we would be screwed either way. We seem to think in terms of either the Democrats are right or the Republicans are, maybe their both wrong. Democracy leads to compromise, sometimes leading to an ineffective solution.

Anyways, holding onto one stupid thing Obama said is a petty why to debate his policies.

In regards to this FCC thing, great! AT&T has been double dipping way too much. Here's what I mean: In the good old days we would need to pay AT&T for messaging, internet, long distance calls, and local calls. Because of innovation by google we only need 2 services to achieve those same forms of communication: internet and local calls, yet AT&T doesn't want to lose 2 pillars of income. Hence, it uses anticompetitive strategies to screw us. And I do feel screwed as an At&T customer. I'd say at least 50% of us do. Now there is something wrong with that.

That's what a subsidy is. That is the reason why you have to wait a certain number of months before you can get a new subsidized phone.

You do end up paying the subsidy back before the carrier will offer you another subsidized phone. They are not going to eat the cost of the subsidy.

I think you hit on a great concept. But why not delete local calls as well? After all, they could be done over the 'internet' as well.

But to make it work, i.e, for AT&T or any other carrier to go along with it, Google should pay them out of their profits they get from their ad revenues. After all, 'it costs Google nothing' for you to use the service!

Ummm yes Apple is, The iPhone is conceived, designed and built by Apple (yea okay the subcontract out the actually construction but you know what I mean). If you mean retail seller of the iPhone then yes you are correct.. Apple has contracts with a number of cell companies to allow them to sell the iPhone for their network.


A legitimate claim to the iPhone?!?! I don't think so. No more so than my local Stop-n-Shop has a 'legitimate claim' to Paramount Pictures movie writing/directing/editing just because they happen to sell some of their movies near the checkout isles. As far as AT&T being an investor in AAPL.. According to all public filings AT&T does NOT have measurable stake in AAPL (and never has).


Agree


Lets not try and pain a picture where Apple somehow invented the entire concept of getting kickbacks for signing up new customers and/or getting existing customers who's contract is near completion to remain with the company. This concept has been around even longer than cell phones... Its called a sales commission and every cell phone manufacturer has been getting them for YEARS before Apple entered the arena.


Well this is really the heart of this whole mess....

Should a company that sells a product in this case internet access be allowed to restrict how you use it (not including illegal activities)?

Should the electric company have the power to be able to restrict its users from using electricity to play loud music after 10pm?

Should a water company have the power to restrict its users from freezing the water to make ice?

Should a cable TV company have the ability to block any negative news reports about itself or any other company it happens to own?

In the end... I don't think ANY company should have that kind of power... I buy internet services I expect to be able to use it how I see fit.... Can I be throttled or metered yes.. if it says so in the contract... They can't tell me I must use Internet Explorer as my only web browser and I can't use ANY IM software at all.

AT&T and Apple are walking a very dangerous line right now. With the FCC taking notice they had better shape up or they run the risk of loosing a lot more power than they ever imagined.

Dave

Not all of it based on the following information: http://www.att.com/Common/merger/fil...ading_FAQs.pdf