Apple responds to FCC inquiry over Google Voice dilemma - Page 4

You said the difference. YOU can sync your contacts with Google Gmail using iTunes if you choose too. In this case you picked Google mail as your email provider and are their customer the software needs to have this information to function. With Google Voice they could use the address book like the 4 apps you mentioned. They are used within the OS of the iPhone. Google has no reason move them to their server from the phone. This policy protects you from companies being able to move your personal data from the phone unknown to U.

If Apple sold an app in their store that they approved that allowed this to happen and it was found that your information was used to defraud people out of large sums of money, because they used U as a reference, or stole identities because of information you had in your phone, emails and such. You would have every right to sue the pants of them. It's not just about Google. If they let one company do it, they have to let the others do it too.

Unfortunately no. Just from what I remember reading about the various recurring revenue streams the iPhone would generate for Apple when the iPhone was first introduced. Doing a quick search now turns up thousands of pages that reference the original revenue splitting deal Apple had with AT&T (now defunct apparently) and a few that mention the carrier requirement to buy and install Apple VVM servers. I can no longer find any explicit documentation that breaks down the recurring share Apple currently gets from the carriers, including how much for the VVM sub.

First, Arrington is emotionally charged up against Apple given his previous iPhone experience. If that's not it, then he's just a fool. That's my conclusion based on his past positions, though I've since ignored everything he's written for about the last six months.

Second, Apple isn't so stupid that it would lie when it knows both AT&T and Google are both also responding. The Google answer is redacted because Google isn't stupid enough to make an enemy of Apple by violating its agreements and making public its contacts with Apple. And we're not so stupid to think that Apple, AT&T and Google have not spoken to each other about their responses. So, Google's response is not significantly different and definitely not the exact opposite.

Third, has anyone actually used the Google Voice iPhone app beyond those inside Google and Apple? How can Arrington speak to what the GV iPhone app does with regard to transferring contacts? As for a Google employee saying the app was "rejected", just look at what happened with the Yahoo messenger app this week to see how easily stuff can be miscommunicated.

It sounds like most supporters of Apple's decision would take anything from Apple, even severe rectal perforation and multiple venereal diseases.

Funny how people can interpret a document different. I se no reference that google violated the terms of the SDK. if they had, certainly Apple would have at least mentioned it in passing in their response, no?

Before you can accuse google of violating the terms, do you have any statement from any party involved that says they did so?

For the original non-subsidized iPhone, Apple received monthly revenue from AT&T instead of the upfront subsidy. That's just about over as all those 2-year contracts expire. But I had never heard that this revenue had anything to do with Apple VVM servers.

No, we simply don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

We recognize that Apple's business models (which just about no one else uses for computers and cell phones) has certain quality and user experience benefits, and we don't want to see it killed because then we'd all be stuck with the model used by their competitors (which to put it plainly, just suck).

So we are very particular about what we complain about and how we complain. Our approach is still very much looking out for our own best interests. But we're not so emotionally agitated or intellectually retarded to create comments like many of those from Apple haters.

It depends where you see value and where you don't. To them, Apple hasn't done anything so severe. Yet.

Some people keep a broader persepctive on the matter, and count the entire iPhone experience as much more than the sum of its (in certain cases imperfect) parts.

Apple has given us much, much more than anyone else has or will in the short-term at least. It seems to be a luxury to e able to complai about an app being rejected from the app store, when no one else has one and in a sitaution in which the state of other manufacturers' products is so utterly dismal in comparison to the iPhone.

Please don't tell me you are one of those that read the word 'replace' and thought they meant that it actually substitutes and removes the built in functionality. Please.

To replace, can mean two things really.
1) If you replace a file on your computer, this implies the original is removed and the new one file placed in the same location. This seems to be the interpretation Apple would prefer the simple minded latch on to
2) One software package can be a 'replacement' for another, while both remain installed and independant. i.e. you can install OMNIWeb or OpenOffice on your Mac as replacements for Safari or MS Office. This does not mean you break, delete or remove Safari or Mac. I often use Office to replace iWork...but I still have iWork installed and can use it.

Apple's own example of what is 'replaced', VVM and SMS, and how they are replaced, by routing through the google servers, shows that the built in functions are not actually replaced.

-Apple states GV 'replaces' Apple VVM by routing voice mail through a separate phone number. Which is true. Nothing removed here. The user is provided with an app they can use as a alternate replacement
-Similar for SMS. SMS messages are sent to your google phone number not your iPhone phone number. So you might choose to use the GV SMS as a replacement for the built in Messages app.

Nothing is replaced, as in one removed for another. The alternative provided becomes a 'replacement' only if the users choose to use it.

Seriously, if the GoogleVoice app actually gutted the iPhone OS and replaced builtin apps and libraries with their own, the app would simply have been rejected. Outright. Apple makes it clear that it has not yet rejected the app.

Bingo (except I think Apple is not as innocent here as you do).

Ah, but you must have known I'd come around at some point.

And it's true, Apple isn't as innocent, either. From what I can tell GV encroached a bit too much on Apple's own implemetaiton of mobile telephony. They don't want GV to be a gateway drug to Google mobile services (which means Google-bases mobile phones.) at least that seems to be a substantial part of Apple's decision. Both had something to lose. I think AT&T had more, however, and they had a hand in the rejection, despite Apple's claim to the contrary.

But then we would be just like you.

read it again. Yes, it uses the word replace, but pay attention this time to the context. They actually give examples of how they are 'replaced'.

You are exactly why the choose the word 'replace' instead of 'provides an alternative'.


read it again. For your benefit, I have bolded the part of you quote that you fabricated, intentionally or otherwise. Given your interpretation of the word replace, I will give you the benefit for the doubt and assume you actually think you read this.


What, are we 5? I see this constantly these days on these forums. "If you don't like this or that go buy something else". That is the most immature, straight up stupid response to what are usually constructive criticisms of Apple, often criticisms from Apple fans that want their favourite company to improve in some area.

Seriously. People need to stop use that is a response or defence. It makes the person that says it look incredibly juvenile and sort of limited.

I don't think Apple is protecting AT&T. They haven't in the past; they left AT&T to respond to the NetShare and SlingPlayer issues. They've left AT&T exposed with regard to MMS and tethering. So I don't think it's an AT&T or carrier issue.

There are at least four sides to this story: Apple, Google, AT&T, and the truth.

Hehe, well put.

You guys sound like battered wives. You are willing to stick with the abusive husband because you don't believe that you would be better off elsewhere or even that the latest actions "aren't so bad".

This debacle over google voice on iphone has everything to do with money and nothing to do with user experience. If the iphone user wants to use google voice, they should be able to use it and they would be better off with it. If other users don't like it (highly improbable) or don't even want to install it, then they can choose not to use it.

Apple is destroying choice. Apple is refusing to let innovation happen.

That's a shame.

Sorry, I meant bingo that he correctly stated that the Apple response appears to be a smokescreen and in how GV provides an alternative to built in functions not actually replacing them.

I don't actually see AT&T involved in the decision on GV... no reason for It.

No, they're not.

The article you cited said that they're at the top of FORTUNE MAGAZINE's list of fastest growing companies - and even that list uses earnings as one of the parameters.

Read the magazine to see how narrow their list is. Many millions of companies are never considered in Fortune's list.

Please don't misrepresent the facts.

They have been beta testing it on an invite only basis for a while now. As of today both the Blackberry & Android apps are available or download.

http://current.com/items/90756580_of...ones-photo.htm

I'm not dumping the iPhone platform over one stupid app! I don;t care about GV that much, nor do I find GV all that impressive. And really, nothing out there is comparable to the iPhone. Further, Apple's obsession with the "user experience" has done far more good than harm over the years. It's the reason Apple is alive and well today.

And your analogy - like a lot of analogies, is inapplicable to the issue being discussed.

You have plenty of choices. And really, it looks like Apple has in fact been the only one innvoatng. The iPhone itself is an example. It's not an open platform. It was never advertised as such. Your other "choices" are Windows Mobile, Android, RIM, which I'm sure are just as goo . . . . oh wait.

Yeah, why don't I just use Windows Mobile instead.

The also-rans are such a joke. And they've had two years already.

I take it to make a comment like that you were on the invite only Beta testing of the App?

Otherwise, to say you don't find it impressive is purely based on what you've read. Isn't that rather shortsighted and an uninformed opinion?

Which is it?

I think he probably meant GV the service and not GV the iPhone app. Which makes sense. If you have no interest in the service then you likely have no interest in the app.

That's not even implied in his comment and I'd rather here his answer.

It was purely a posting bashing all other Phone OS's other than Apple's with slam at an App (based on his previous postings) he knows little to nothing about.

If anyone ever needed proof that the Mac bashers around here have no idea what they're talking about, this is it in a nutshell.

For Apple, User Experience IS about money.

Simple Marketing 101 lesson. Pay attention.
What does Apple have to sell?
-They certainly don't have network effects.
- They don't have unique hardware (note: their hardware is far, far better than MOST of the PCs being sold out there which is part of the reason why Apple has such high satisfaction scores, but there is other high quality hardware if you want to pay for it).
- They don't have a cost advantage

What they have is a vastly superior, consistent UI. That is the driving force which has created customer loyalty and which make the iPhone the fastest selling (at launch) electronic device EVER. When you have that kind of market advantage in such a competitive market, you don't let go of it. EVER. You fiercely defend your turf and do not allow anyone to interfere with it. That is essentially why the developer rules say you can't replace Apple's UI.

Arguing that 'it's only UI' indicates nothing more than your complete and utter lack of understanding of how the market works.

Funny how Mac basher are incapable of anything more than the same old, tired ad hominem attacks.

Did it ever occur to you to debate the topic rationally as most of Apple's defenders are?

Well, as others have remarked, unless you are involved in the development of GV for iPhone you have no way of knowing that it behaves the same as other implementations. The idea that Apple is lying to the FCC in this regard about what the GV app does on the iPhone is a bit ludicrous to say the least.

You destroyed whatever shred of credibility you still had when you quoted Arrington as an authority.

NVF has already made up his mind, don't bother him with logic or facts.

Then if they are not lying then they have a Terrible Vetting Process for their Apps.

FCC filing, Question & Answer to question #4.

Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?
Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&T’s 3G network.

Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google) was on the board at Apple at the time this app was being written. VOIP never came up in casual conversation or a board meeting? Please don't imply that either Apple/Google or AT&T are that ignorant. OK, maybe AT&T...

Edit.
Should be noted that it was not supported in the first generation but Google says the latest version of Android for developers would support full VoIP, but no developer has submitted an app.

Quote
Android was not designed to handle VOIP when the Skype app was released. After some updates to the SDK, developers now have the ability to create fully-featured VOIP apps using the new tools. Neither Skype, nor anyone else, has offered up one yet.

Link for quote: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...ls-apple_N.htm

Eric Schmidt had to excuse himself from Apple board meeting whenever the Apple board discussed on iphone matters. Eric Schmidt --- being a member of the Google board of directors --- cannot discuss Google matters with fellow Apple board members without explicit Google board approvals.

You don't understand such basic board governance rules.

I understand them completely that is why most deals are made outside of the board room.

Edit.
You understood what I was implying regardless of where it was discussed.

And the fact that Apple in response to an FCC investigation says they don't know GV uses the 3G network implies that they don't look very closely at their apps or they are proclaiming ingorance to the true nature of what the App is capable of. Both don't make Apple look very good in their approval process.

Only when they are trying to make money together --- but right now Apple and Google have divergent interest and are competing against each other.

You don't give private confidential information to your competitor.

Bullsh*t

You obviously don't know shit about programming or realize the consequences of committing perjury in front of the FCC.

Cut the conspiracy theory. It make one look pretty stupid complaining when Apple is silent and then more so when they respond.

You keep calling it perjury and even sought to educate your fellow members here on US law...but I don't think you really know what the word means.

Note any statements in the responses being made while sworn or under oath? Were they made to a member of congress or the judiciary while under oath?

Lying to the FCC, while not under oath or in a sworn affidavit would likely result in fines or other sanctions. It's not perjury.

You must be new to the Mac community. Apple has a great UI, but it has often been inconsistent. Not to point out an utter lack of understanding, but this post is full of them...where to start...

1) Apples rules say you can't replace Apple's UI. Now, do you mean you think they say you cannot replace, as in remove and substitute your own? Or that may not offer an alternative? Or both? To help you, there are many approved apps that provide UIs to functions that Apple offers. Dialers, SMS apps, calendars, contacts..you name it. A GV App would have 'replaced' the Apple UI in the sense that it would offer an alternative. Obviously, if it replaced actual UI elements (i.e. parts of the OS) then it would have been rejected. Apple says it was not yet rejected. Go figure. Also, Apple's own description of the 'replacing' of Apple's interface by GV makes it clear that all it does is offer an alternative. I think the chose the word 'replace' to intentionally confuse the simple.
2)The OS is very important, but the UI is only a part of that and not the most important part. Just look at how often the tweak and change the Mac OSX UI. Sometimes aesthetics are just aesthetics. Their OS is robust, scalable, secure and fully buzzword compliant, but the OS and certainly not the UI are alone in being responsible for their success, though that are a part (just a part)

Their success has mainly been due to implementation and delivery. Whether it is the OS, their apps, their acessories, the iPhone, etc, it is their tight control and obsession with perfection that has made them a success...oh and Jobs ability to sell anything. On could also argue a large factor has been their integration of hardware and software, but they are hardly unique in the aspect. On the desktop side, everyone was selling integrated units when Apple was young. Apple's was just better. On the phone side, obviously there are competitors selling integrated units. Again, Apple just does it better.

3) Apple would strongly argue, and have for years, that they do have a cost advantage. TCO, ROI, whatever, they like to project a competitive level. Btu you know better than Apple?

4) Up until a few years ago, they sold very unique hardware (PPC). Even now, with the PA Semi acquisition they have openly discussed developing custom chips, potentially for the iPhone. But again, you know better?

Sounds incredibly familiar. But, he isn't fabricating facts to make his point.

What points? According to Apple, Google replaced key (some would say core) iPhone functionality with their own. According to Google, we can't be trusted to know as they redacted their discussion of that question on the publicly released version of their response.

How NVF could know more than the rest of us is beyond me, unless he works for Google or the FCC?

At the end of the day, I don't know how any company could be expected to support Google's eternal beta apps anyway. If anything, IMO Apple could've rejected it out-of-hand on that basis alone.

But scanning your iPhone contacts info without the user's knowledge or permission and uploading that to their servers, well, I can't stress how over-the-top I find that sort of behavior. Imagine the outcry if Microsoft pulled a stunt like that. As I said probably 100 posts earlier, "Do no evil" my arse.

There you go making thing up again. In fact, you underlined it this time. Lying and fabricating 'facts' does not help your case. Apple did not include, anywhere in their response, that the google app would send user contacts, or anything else, without the user's knowledge or permission. You made that up and have repeatly used it in thise thread to backup your points.

So, what point,s you ask? When I say he is not making up 'facts', it was supposed to clue you into your own fabrications in this thread already having been pointed out, so stop it please. I guess I was too subtle.

As far as replacing 'core' functionality. Please, once again, read the f*cking response again. Pay attention to the context. Apple's own examples of googles 'replacement' of any iPhone functions show they meant replace, as in a user might opt to use one over the other. Yet some people think it means it removes and places it's own files/functions in place. This is not the case. It isn't that difficult.

Like I said previously, they chose their wording very carefully for people just like you.

I always like to think that not everyone will understand everything and we need to educate more than berate people. You maybe right with your arguments concerning 'replace' word, but at the end of the day, we all have our opinions and unless we are at desk of person writing the reply or FCC representative requesting clarification, we will probably never know.

All your comments are based on opinions, since the content of the letter is factual evidence, but interpretation of the contents is opinions, since we never wrote the letter.

I do agree with your assessment, with concern to Apple words, but at the end of the day, the letter is for FCC and not the consumer.