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

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?

Wouldn't it be great if there was a forum where all the republican/democrat sniping could happen without bothering the rest of us?

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

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?

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?

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.

Great response.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.


Its widely known that the Prez carries a Crackberry.

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.

Still waiting for ikrupp (or some other wingnut) to take up my offer and take a stand against government intervention of powerful corporations!

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.

"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,


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.


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.


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.

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.

"...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.

.....

.....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Don't become a theorist.

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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.