or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › FCC investigates Apple, AT&T for Google Voice app rejection
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FCC investigates Apple, AT&T for Google Voice app rejection - Page 3

post #81 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

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

So I gather that if you drive on the New York Thruway, for example, which you pay to do so, that you should be able to drive as fast as you want, on whatever type of vehicle you want, when you want, as long as you want, whatever you want, etc.?

In other words, you can disregard the rules of the road because you also paid for the vehicle?
post #82 of 214
Wouldn't it be great if there was a forum where all the republican/democrat sniping could happen without bothering the rest of us?

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #83 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

So I gather that if you drive on the New York Thruway, for example, which you pay to do so, that you should be able to drive as fast as you want, on whatever type of vehicle you want, when you want, as long as you want, whatever you want, etc.?

In other words, you can disregard the rules of the road because you also paid for the vehicle?

Don't be goofy... I already stated illegal activity would still be illegal,.

HOWEVER!

I do NOT expect one speed limit for cars made by CompanyA and another speed limit for cars made by CompanyB (when both cars have demonstrated the ability to safely travel at said speed) and somehow I think you are going to try and explain to me why this is okay.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #84 of 214
Something I haven't seen pop up in this thread at all, aren't there other smartphones available on AT&T that have this app, can use it and haven't had the app pulled or AT&T take action against them in any fashion?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #85 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


On Saturday, AT&T indicated that it was aware of the implications but directly denied any involvement in the App Store approval process.

"AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store," company spokesman Brad Mays said. "We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it."

What a mealy-mouthed evasion that was. Does anyone believe that the
agreement between AT&T and Apple does not require Apple to reject
applications which direct money away from AT&T on AT&T's behalf?
post #86 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

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)

This is what capitalism is all about --- as software developers get frustrated (i.e. they can't get a bank loan to fund R&D on iphone projects because the banks fear that Apple's would summarily reject the app), they will migrate to other friendier platforms. That in turn will make Apple to change its policy.

Why should the feds get involved? AT&T is not the largest carrier in the US, and the iphone is not the largest smartphone provider in the US.
post #87 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

I'm with you. I truly do not understand the issue. This seems to be a fishing expedition to find some basis for a case against exclusive deals. Doesn't Palm have an exclusive deal with Sprint? Isn't that how all phones in the country are introduced? AT&T pays a great deal of money in subsidies to carry the iPhone and offer it at a low price to customers. Since when is that illegal? Who cares if everyone in America, or the world for that matter, can't get an iPhone? Why is that a crisis? What makes owning an iPhone a basic human right? AT&T does not serve everyone in America. So what! Dominos Pizza does not deliver to everyone in America. How did we get to be this entitled?

If GV is a killer feature and it is offered on other phones, is this not the competitive edge that other venders are looking for? Why can't the marketplace decide this one? Why should the government have the right to decide what apps are approved? Do we really want the government, of any country, telling Apple what apps they have to approve, or cell carriers what services they have to offer? I have a GV # and I would much rather be pissed at AT&T and Apple for denying me a service I want rather than having the government stepping in to micromanage the industry. This is worse than anti-competitive; this is anti-capitalism. Like it or not, this is America. We are a capitalist nation.

Great response.
post #88 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronbo View Post

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.

I thought this developer's response was to make his app free for jailbroken phones. Not exactly a business model in that, is there?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #89 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

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.

Mmmm... not really. You probably "own" many products that you don't really own. You actually have agreed to a license to use the software on the iPhone. Doesn't mean you can change it and sell it back to someone else as your software.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #90 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGSStateStudent View Post

ATNT is a monopoly.
Apple is not IMO.

at&t hasn't been a "monopoly" since 1984. Even then, they were scary big but not really a monopoly in the pure sense of the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_Divestiture

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #91 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

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.

Fantastic summary. Competition, not government interference is the real driver of invention.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #92 of 214
Our President should just get himself an iPhone if that's what he really wants and butt out of this.
post #93 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I thought this developer's response was to make his app free for jailbroken phones. Not exactly a business model in that, is there?

Not only that, but he a few burned bridges along the way. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone else's Google Voice app, but I doubt this guy's apps will ever be back in the app store. Too much of a drama queen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

Our President should just get himself an iPhone if that's what he really wants and butt out of this.

Its widely known that the Prez carries a Crackberry.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #94 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

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...

Please tell me you don't have a degree in Finance/Accounting and are a CPA in the US because it might explain much on how this country's economy blew up with GW.
post #95 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Please tell me you don't have a degree in Finance/Accounting and are a CPA in the US because it might explain much on how this country's economy blew up with GW.

Actually, I think he understands it very well. The subsidy for the iPhone is really in the cost of the plan that you select.

You should be angry that you keep paying for the phone after the 2 year contract.
post #96 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

Hey lkrupp, how about making a statement against government intervention by calling AT&T and asking them to assign you a new random number, rather than continuing to use the number you retained after leaving Verizon/Sprint/whatever. After all the ability to do so only happened AFTER government intervention (and was strongly opposed by the carriers). And since no one but salespeople want to get a hold of you in the first place, it will be no loss on your part!

Still waiting for ikrupp (or some other wingnut) to take up my offer and take a stand against government intervention of powerful corporations!
post #97 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post


FCC ---- SHOULD BE --- going after far more than this ---- this is why the FCC sent a letter to Google asking how Google rejects apps submitted to the Android app store. It's biting Google back in the ass.

Ok. Great. No further discussion needed. Force all carriers and device producers to adhere to standrards of content decency ( no pron) that they set if they wan to and prevent them from limiting apps that use the data pipe in ways the carriers don't like- sling player, google voice, etc. I'm all for that.
post #98 of 214
"AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store," company spokesman Brad Mays said. "We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it."

AT&T should get fined for this alone. It is a matter of public record that they were in fact responsible for the gimping of the Slingbox app & Skype,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

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?

You say "The iPhone would never have come to market without a carrier partner paying a substantial portion of the price of every phone". That's wrong. The original iPhone was unsubsidized and the only reason Apple signed an exclusive deal was that they wanted to maximize profits. They not only maximized profits but made a revolutionary deal. The idea is ridiculous because frankly all these phones are overpriced. A recent report says that Apple makes as much as 60% profit on the iPhone. That is a low estimate. The reason they why these companies subsidize the phone is to tie you into a longer contract at a higher price where they can make more money. The is no other tech product in the industry that has the kind of profit margins that cell phones do. It is a racket because generally the subsidized price should be the actual value.

Secondly, I don't believe that AT&T has the right to approve and reject apps which is why you see them tossing the blame in Apple's lap. I don't believe you know whether or not this is federal law unless you are federal prosecutor or handle these kind of cases against the government. You say that this is AT&T's device. It's not. It's the Apple iPhone. AT&T merely has the rights as the exclusive carrier. I don't know either. But I can see something is wrong here as with the majority of people. This is not forcing Apple to have feature, this is about anti-competitve practices. Also AT&T has very little say over how I may use my device as long as I'm doing nothing illegal. I signed an "unlimited" data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

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.

This has very little to do with Google. This product could have come from any company. As said before this is more about anti-competitive practices and less about Google Voice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

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.

The market is not working? How do you know?. It's been a few days. How can you possibly know that? They are complaining. That's it. People that may want to leave AT&T today cannot because they are in a contract which is what this whole investigation is revolving around. People have to pay $175 to end their contract which isn't an easy thing in a bad economy. Also I believe you still can't even use it with another carrier. I'm sure that Mike Arrington and the guy from Panic can afford to end their contracts but not the Average Joe. It is also funny that Average Joe probably paid what the phone is actually worth when he bought it, but just got tied into a 2 year contract.
post #99 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGSStateStudent View Post

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 can afford a dozen iPhones easily, it's just not a good value or replacement for devices I currently own.

It doesn't fit into my rugged lifestyle neither; which a inexpensive, reliable, easy replaceable "just a phone" does the job a whole lot better.



I'll be glad if the FCC breaks up the carrier/Apple deals and demands openness of the iPhone, it might bring the price down enough to make them nearly disposable in nature, like my current phones.

If not, everyone will be screwed paying more than they should for many more years than necessary.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #100 of 214
"...AT&T in the past has freely acknowledged that it doesn't want voice over IP apps like Skype, or TV-to-phone streaming apps like SlingPlayer Mobile, running on its 3G network due to bandwidth concerns."

More likely, the reason is that AT&T had revenue concerns. I am SO close to going back to my RAZR and canceling the iPhone data part of my plan. I could get some good beans for my slightly used 32 GB 3GS, judging by the eBay auctions.
post #101 of 214
.....
post #102 of 214
.....
post #103 of 214
I'm also in favour of the FCC looking into things like this, but I don't think you know what you're talking about here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

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. ...

This is just completely wrong. You are mixing things up that don't go together.

Yes, you own the phone (after the contract period is up), and yes you *can* install anything you want on it. Apple in fact, doesn't stop you from doing so.

What you are missing though, is that software that's on the phone, is not *sold* but licensed. There is no "thing" to sell with software, you are actually "buying" a set of instructions, rules and procedures not an object like a car or a book. It's not so much a sale as an (licensing) agreement to use the software. It's closer to hiring someone for a job than buying a car.

You can put anything you want on the phone, but the OS software is not "yours" you are just licensing it. The app store is also not *yours* but Apple's. You can download apps all you want from other sources, but it's up to you to figure out how to do it. Apple doesn't have to let you use it's app store to install whatever you want, and Apple doesn't have to help you break into the OS to do that. Install anything you want but you are on your own in that regard.

Apple also doesn't have to license the use of their software (the OS) with whatever it is you want to put on the phone. They guarantee the software works if you stick to the agreement, if you don't, then again, you're on your own in that regard. So you can install porn, or stolen software, or anything you want, but they have the right to no longer support the license you signed when you bought the software if you do.

You are just 100% wrong on this. Apple is not stopping anyone from putting what they want on their phones. They are just not helping you do it, and they are trying to stop anyone who wants to do it for nefarious means, or who want's to do it commercially.

They are doing exactly the same as they did with the OS-X86 people. They basically don't care what you do as long as it's just a hobby or personal use, but the minute you try to make it into a business, or infringe on their business, they will try to stop it. You would too in their position. It's an entirely reasonable, rational position to take.
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
In Windows, a window can be a document, it can be an application, or it can be a window that contains other documents or applications. Theres just no consistency. Its just a big grab bag of monkey...
Reply
post #104 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Just how is anyone screwed by voluntarily paying for a device and service at the rate the provider is asking for? Who is forcing anyone to buy an iPhone and at&t's data service? How did any of you fools who are screaming for the forced breakup and regulation of Apple arrive at the conclusion that, because a device is very desirable, that you have the right to have it in your possession on your terms, at the price you decide is fair? And where do you get off demanding that the government force the parties to comply with your desires? When did the ownership of an iPhone become a basic human right anyway? How dare you demand the right to set the price and terms of use of a non-essential, purely optional, luxury item?

This is sickening.

I see you're not having much luck influencing the "I want everything for free and a bag of chips, too" crowd.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #105 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Voyer View Post

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. ...

2. Google does not make a cell phone and does not have a cellular network. ...

3. This last point is simple. The market is working. ... The only way they are stifling competition of other phones and services is by being superior. That is change I can believe in.

Right on. You and Ronbo are the two that are making sense in this conversation.

Now let me toss up an alternative theory: Suppose Apple's original contract with AT&T is such that Apple must block this type of service via the App Store, plus Apple is restricted from talking about it beyond obtusely saying that VoIP is only allowed via wifi. (Note that AT&T is quoted as saying they don't "approve" or "manage" the App Store. That would be technically true, even as AT&T has a contract that restricts Apple's choices regarding the App Store.)

Now suppose Apple is chafing at these restrictions, seeing that it's allowed on other AT&T phones, and especially since AT&T hasn't lived up to the "spirit of their contract" regarding MMS and tethering. What might Apple's BOD decide to do? (Note Schmidt/Google is on that BOD.) Might they not provoke a consumer outrage such that the FCC takes notice?

That's one theory. My other theory is that Apple has stupidly mismanaged this whole affair, and may face consequences that it really doesn't want. That's usually the problem with government intervention; it often has unpredictable and unintended outcomes.

Added: What I'm trying to say is that Apple's original contract with AT&T was worded in such a way that it left too much latitude for AT&T to restrict apps that AT&T doesn't want on the iPhone on their network. And Apple is making no progress in removing some of those restrictions.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #106 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Yes, I agree. The government should buy Apple, at&t, and Google. How dare such evil corporations even exist? If the United States Government took ownership of these sordid entities then we could all go to bed at night knowing that everything is fair, everybody gets what they want, and everybody gets the same thing. We could all then gather around the virtual campfire (the real thing would be so environmentally damaging) and sing happy songs as we all, both rich and poor, texted each other with our iPhones. Then we would all travel safely home in our GM electric cars.

Tulkas, you make me want to throw up.

Stole the words from my mouth, sharpened them up a bit and basically demolished the social agenda. I'm really getting sick of everyone thinking they can tell other people how to live life and run their business. If people don't like it... guess what? iPhone is not a God-given right. It is a luxury item. If you can't afford it, forcing the government on them is just going to hurt their profits and lessen quality SOMEWHERE in the pipeline. I wish people got this. Nothing in life is free. Nothing is fair. Quit whining and change what you dislike. Don't run to/praise a federal entity that hardly has your best interests in mind.
post #107 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Right on. You and Ronbo are the two that are making sense in this conversation.

Now let me toss up an alternative theory: Suppose Apple's original contract with AT&T is such that Apple must block this type of service via the App Store, plus Apple is restricted from talking about it beyond obtusely saying that VoIP is only allowed via wifi. (Note that AT&T is quoted as saying they don't "approve" or "manage" the App Store. That would be technically true, even as AT&T has a contract that restricts Apple's choices regarding the App Store.)

Now suppose Apple is chafing at these restrictions, seeing that it's allowed on other AT&T phones, and especially since AT&T hasn't lived up to the "spirit of their contract" regarding MMS and tethering. What might Apple's BOD decide to do? (Note Schmidt/Google is on that BOD.) Might they not provoke a consumer outrage such that the FCC takes notice?

That's one theory. My other theory is that Apple has stupidly mismanaged this whole affair, and may face consequences that it really doesn't want. That's usually the problem with government intervention; it often has unpredictable and unintended outcomes.

Don't become a theorist.
post #108 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Something I haven't seen pop up in this thread at all, aren't there other smartphones available on AT&T that have this app, can use it and haven't had the app pulled or AT&T take action against them in any fashion?

True, but in those other instances, the app can be bought and loaded onto the device without the handset manufacturer's consent. In this case, Apple has a contract with AT&T that includes restrictions on the App Store.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #109 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

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.

Sure, you can load whatever additional apps you want on your iPhone; just jailbreak it. But for many of those apps, you must use the cellular network service (for the app to have any use), and that cellular network is not your property.

Compare it with the iPod touch, and you can see the difference.

Added: But I definitely agree with you that the iPhone should be unlocked after your contract is up.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #110 of 214
Here's a good article about this: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1530...pen-the-iphone

Some background: At the Mossberg's D Conference in 2006, six months before iPhone was introed, Jobs derisively referred to the cell carriers as "orifices", and compared the "walled" cellular networks with the "open" wireline networks.

Apple's clear stance has been that it wants the cell networks to be dumb pipes that don't interfere with what Apple wants to do.* AT&T has allowed Apple to do plenty, but not everything. So has Apple's stance changed? I doubt it.

* And of course, Apple wants to build its own unique ecosystem and experience on top of this open network. Even an Apple fanboy can see that, but fanboy will go along as long as Apple keeps innovating and improving that experience.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #111 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

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.

You'll probably find that whilst the phone is subsidised (and in the initial contract) it still technically belongs to the carrier. Check the fine print.

I know in the UK the carrier is within their rights to ask for a phone back should they terminate your contract for a breech of some kind.
post #112 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Something I haven't seen pop up in this thread at all, aren't there other smartphones available on AT&T that have this app, can use it and haven't had the app pulled or AT&T take action against them in any fashion?

Indeed. The exact reason that neither Apple or AT&T are monopolies in this situation.

There are other carriers besides AT&T, and their are other phones beside the iPhone.

Maybe AT&T has a more than 50% US marketshare, I don't know. But that won't make it a monopoly.

Apple has 0.5% at best of phone market so it is nowhere near a monopoly.
post #113 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

… I definitely agree with you that the iPhone should be unlocked after your contract is up.

Isn't it?

If you upgrade from the 3G to the new 3GS in Canada, you can do anything you want with the older phone.

I believe the same holds true with AT&T
post #114 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Isn't it?

If you upgrade from the 3G to the new 3GS in Canada, you can do anything you want with the older phone.

I just chatted online with a US Online Chat session on Apple.
If you upgrade your 3G to a 3GS you cannot use the 3G on any other carrier, you are tied into AT&T so the phone is useless unless you sell it. This is why they are being investigated. If you don't believe the chat session below then log into Apple and try and upgrade your 3G to a 3GS and there will be a chat option during the process.


You are chatting with Randal, an Apple Expert
Hi, my name is Randal. Welcome to Apple!

Randal: How may I help you today?

You: Hello.

Randal: Would you like some assistance with your shopping?

You: If I upgrade my 3G to a 3GS can I use my 3G on another carrier?

Randal: You would not be able to do that.

You: What do I do with it then? Can I sell it on Ebay or another online service?

Randal: You could try something like that.

You: Can I trade it in for a partial discount on the new phone?

Randal: There are not any trade in programs.

You: If I own the 3G phone why can't I activate it on anothe carrier like T-Mobile?

Randal: They are locked to the AT&T network.

Randal: Did you need any other help shopping for your new iPhone today?

You: How so?

You: How are they locked to AT&T?

Randal: That is the way they are designed.

You: They are designed to be used only with AT&T? That seems against the law?

Randal: Did you need any other help shopping for your new iPhone today?

You: Can you please answer my last question?

Randal: That is how most cell phones operate.

Randal: For more help you can search Google.

You: Not my BlackBerry, I can activate it on any network I want.

Randal: Did you need any other help shopping for your new iPhone today?

You: No, I just wanted clarification to post our conversation on AppleInsider, regarding a forum they have as to why Apple & AT&T are being investigated by the FCC.

You: Thanks for the info.

Randal: Thank you for visiting the Apple Store. We appreciate your business. If you would like more help, please chat with us again.

Thank you for choosing the Apple Store. If you have any additional questions, please chat us again.
post #115 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPhone1982 View Post

I just chatted online with a US Online Chat session on Apple.
If you upgrade your 3G to a 3GS you cannot use the 3G on any other carrier, you are tied into AT&T so the phone is useless unless you sell it.


As I said you can do anything you want with it.

The phone is legally yours. The problem starts with the fact that it is a GSM phone and thus won't work on Verizon's non-sim card network.

Although the iPhone is locked to AT&T, it can be easily broken.

You could sign up for AT&T's data plan if you want or even just use it for phoning only. However, you could still connect to WiFi; not AT&T's free spots mind you. For that you need a functional data plan.
post #116 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Isn't it?

If you upgrade from the 3G to the new 3GS in Canada, you can do anything you want with the older phone.

I believe the same holds true with AT&T

I know two people who've told me that AT&T wouldn't unlock it for them after their contract was up. I don't know if this was policy or if it was just them...
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #117 of 214
I understand both sides of the argument but for this one, I'm going to have to side with Apple and AT&T. Here is my reasoning. I don't think its exactly fair for you to use your "competitor's" service(s) (in this case AT&T's cellular network) to "compete" with them ESPECIALLY when what you are offering is significantly underscores the price the other guy can set. This is what got Standard Oil in trouble in the late 1800's early 1900's. Google is being a leech using AT&T's services to introduce a free way to call and text. Now if everyone gets a Google Voice or a Skype and drops their AT&T plan AT&T does not make money. If AT&T doesn't get money they can't keep supporting the iPhone (or in worse case scenario not be able to support their cellular network) in which case they will drop it. If you don't have AT&T around you can't use your iPhone period. And the same would be true for any other cell network in regards to GV. Google Voice's practices are far more monopolistic than AT&T's. If Google wants to give you free Google Voice maybe they should think about starting up a Google Mobile division of their company in which they become a carrier. You can't just yell at the top of your lungs: "This is what's good for us consumers!!!" Like the App Store has treated you bad thus far. You have to weigh in all factors before you make a decision. What may be really good for you might be very bad for someone else which in the end is bad. You have to reach a happy medium. Self-Entitlement mentalities are never beneficial in the long run
Late 2008 Unibody MacBook
32GB iPad Wifi+3G
16GB iPhone
Reply
Late 2008 Unibody MacBook
32GB iPad Wifi+3G
16GB iPhone
Reply
post #118 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

As I said you can do anything you want with it.

The phone is legally yours. The problem starts with the fact that it is a GSM phone and thus won't work on Verizon's non-sim card network.

Although the iPhone is locked to AT&T, it can be easily broken.

You could sign up for AT&T's data plan if you want or even just use it for phoning only. However, you could still connect to WiFi; not AT&T's free spots mind you. For that you need a functional data plan.

What part about where I asked if I could use it on another Carrier and an Apple Rep told me I could not don't you understand?

Apple is saying you cannot use the iPhone (in the USA) on any other carrier.

It's that simple. If that isn't against the law in the US than it should be. I own the phone as I do my non subsidized 1st Gen Phone yet legally I can't activate them on any other carrier.

To HELL with APPLE & AT&T. They should be being investigated by the FCC and I hope they get burned on the stake with this one and their stock goes down. I sold all my shares in Apple when they hit 160.

I could care less what their stock does at this point. By the way. Google Android sold 1 million phones faster than Apple did. I see Google as the Future and Apple and Microsoft about the same on the "I don't care what my customers think" level.
post #119 of 214
Sorry if anyone has already mentioned this...
The Google Voice app has been removed in Canada as well as the US. I'm interested to know if it's been removed at all the stores.
If it has been, doesn't it seem unlikely that AT&T is behind it?
post #120 of 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP View Post

Sorry if anyone has already mentioned this...
The Google Voice app has been removed in Canada as well as the US. I'm interested to know if it's been removed at all the stores.
If it has been, doesn't it seem unlikely that AT&T is behind it?

I suspect Apple has similar deals with all its carrier partners. One carrier is not all that different from another and they all have the same concerns. I suspect Apple is just being a good partner and carrying out the spirit, if not the letter, of the deals they made.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › FCC investigates Apple, AT&T for Google Voice app rejection