or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple responds to FCC inquiry over Google Voice dilemma
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple responds to FCC inquiry over Google Voice dilemma - Page 5

post #161 of 280
Lying to the FCC claims seems to cover every carrier and lots of politicians.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...&start=10&sa=N
post #162 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

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.

No, he stated 'fact' not opinion. When
that 'fact' is made up, it is called a lie.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #163 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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...

Well, no. I've been using Macs probably since before many posters here were born. (I used a very early Mac to write my thesis in 1985). As usual, you're relying on made up 'facts' to try to prove your point. You'd probably do a lot better if you stuck to REAL facts rather than making them up as you go along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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.

I think you're one of the simple, then. Either that or you're making things up because you don't like Apple and want to berate them every chance you get. Apple's wording is VERY clear:
"it appears to alter the iPhones distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhones core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. "

Apple states to the FCC very clearly that GV replaces Apple's UI with its own. Not just the functionality, but the actual UI. You don't go around lying to the FCC.

So who should we believe - a multibillion dollar company which undoubtedly had an entire team of lawyers vet their sworn statement to make sure it was completely accurate or someone who can't even understand the difference between 'replace' and 'add'?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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)

OK, so 'UI' is another term you don't understand.

The UI is not about aesthetics. It's about how things work and how the user interfaces with the computer. Overall, it clearly is the UI that drives sales.

Just one example: the OS clearly IS robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant. The xServe is quite competitive in the markets it competes in and OS X server licenses are dirt cheap compared to Windows. Why in the world haven't OS X Server and the xServe gotten any traction? Because the UI is not as relevant in servers - while all those things you cite are critical. So if it was all about being robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant, OS X Server should be dominant. It's not - because it's the UI that drives Mac sales, not the buzzword compliance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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?

Apple does have a lifetime cost advantage. However, their initial purchase price is significantly higher. How many home users do you know who consider lifetime cost? For that matter, how many businesses actually consider lifetime cost? Very few.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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?

Why in the world do you have to bring up ancient history? We're talking about Apple TODAY - not in the past (yes, PPC was at one time significantly superior to x86 in performance, but that's completely irrelevant today). As for possibly developing custom chips, you don't build a marketing plan on wild-assed speculation (or even intelligent projections - remember how badly they got burned on IBM's promise of 3 GHz G5 chips?). If they develop a chip that runs circles around Intel's chips, costs $9.95, and uses 20 mW of power, then they would have a different advantage and a different marketing plan. But today, none of those things exist, so their marketing plan must be based on reality.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #164 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

No, he stated 'fact' not opinion. When
that 'fact' is made up, it is called a lie.

You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?

Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #165 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?

Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.

Whoa there. Let's hold on a sec.

To my understanding GV did not replace Apple's interface. I should hope it didn't. If it did, then I'm all for Apple kicking that app to the curb.

It has been every GV user's contention that it was smply an alternative interface, like a lot of the dialer apps out there.

What is meant by "replace" anyway? Did GV lock the user out of the standard interface? Was the user not able to access Apple's standard interface?

I hope someone can clear this up once and for all.
post #166 of 280
Alright, I watched the demo vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ilvf..._embedded#t=86

All I have to say is, wow. That's balls. It really is. It's not a replacement as such. It's an app that offers an alternative to Apple's entire set of mobile telephony features. It looks like you can, in fact, bypass the iPhone's entire telephony interface, and just use GV.

It's not a replacement, but it's a broad and very far-reaching duplication of features that seem to give a different user experience than what Apple has. This is no simple dialer app. It seems like complete Google "Trojan Horse." It's as if Google duplicated a major part of the iPhone's OS and then offered that to users to use in place of Apple's original implementation. And really, it can certainly function as a "replacement." I can see why and how Apple used that term to describe it.

I'm not surprised Apple ended up rejecting this. As a user, I don't know how to feel about it, really. But I can certainly undertstand how this is unacceptable to Apple, and AT&T as well.
post #167 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Well, no. I've been using Macs probably since before many posters here were born. (I used a very early Mac to write my thesis in 1985). As usual, you're relying on made up 'facts' to try to prove your point. You'd probably do a lot better if you stuck to REAL facts rather than making them up as you go along.

So, asking a question of you is stating a fact? I hope your advisor had better reading comprehension skills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I think you're one of the simple, then. Either that or you're making things up because you don't like Apple and want to berate them every chance you get. Apple's wording is VERY clear:
"it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. "

Have you even read their response? Do you understand the different meanings 'replace' can have? If it actually removed anything, do you think they might have mentioned an example? Instead they gave examples of 'replacing' that simple describe providing alternatives. Please go back and read. Maybe have someone read it with you to explain the examples Apple gives and how they do not show removal but only alternatives.

I use Safari on my PC at work as a replacement for IE. I still have IE installed. Talk about simple.

Do I dislike Apple? No, they are my favourite company. I just don't blindly accept everything they do. That is the action of the simple. I have used Apple products since before there were Macs. But, damn if I am dumb enough to think they are above reproach as a company.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Apple states to the FCC very clearly that GV replaces Apple's UI with its own. Not just the functionality, but the actual UI. You don't go around lying to the FCC.

So who should we believe - a multibillion dollar company which undoubtedly had an entire team of lawyers vet their sworn statement to make sure it was completely accurate or someone who can't even understand the difference between 'replace' and 'add'?

More fabrications. Did the responses from any of the companies mention that it was a sworn response? Here is a tip...no. Did I say they lied? Again, no. They used words that were open to misinterpretation by some. You are an example. Read it again, and it is very clear...hopefully

But then, should I expect you understand that words can imply different meanings? Perhaps I expect too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


OK, so 'UI' is another term you don't understand.

The UI is not about aesthetics. It's about how things work and how the user interfaces with the computer. Overall, it clearly is the UI that drives sales.

Just one example: the OS clearly IS robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant. The xServe is quite competitive in the markets it competes in and OS X server licenses are dirt cheap compared to Windows. Why in the world haven't OS X Server and the xServe gotten any traction? Because the UI is not as relevant in servers - while all those things you cite are critical. So if it was all about being robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant, OS X Server should be dominant. It's not - because it's the UI that drives Mac sales, not the buzzword compliance.

Umm...Maybe because aesthetics are not as important in the server market? The UI is important, as I said. You could even call it their crown jewel. It is not the only reason, as you said it was. Again, talk about simple.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Apple does have a lifetime cost advantage. However, their initial purchase price is significantly higher. How many home users do you know who consider lifetime cost? For that matter, how many businesses actually consider lifetime cost? Very few.

First you clearly say Apple has no cost advantage. Now you admit they do. Please make up your mind. Oh, and many consumers are price conscious of the long term costs of their purchases...the intelligent ones anyway. Same with businesses. Especially businesses. If they weren't, companies like Gartner and Forrester would go out of business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Why in the world do you have to bring up ancient history? We're talking about Apple TODAY - not in the past (yes, PPC was at one time significantly superior to x86 in performance, but that's completely irrelevant today). As for possibly developing custom chips, you don't build a marketing plan on wild-assed speculation (or even intelligent projections - remember how badly they got burned on IBM's promise of 3 GHz G5 chips?). If they develop a chip that runs circles around Intel's chips, costs $9.95, and uses 20 mW of power, then they would have a different advantage and a different marketing plan. But today, none of those things exist, so their marketing plan must be based on reality.

A few years ago is not ancient history. You said Apple has no unique hardware. But, in 2006, prior to their Intel based systems and before the iPhone, they were doing quite well...you know, with unique hardware. The switch to Intel allowed them grow even more. But, they do use commodity hardware these days, hence it being the last point in my response to you, as it was the least relevant.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #168 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?

Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.

No, like when you say the responses were sworn statements. Or when John B says the Apple response accuses google of collecting users contacts without user knowledge or permission. Those are lies.

When you fail to understand the context of the word 'Replace', even with clear examples given by Apple and other trying to help you through your confusion, that isn't lying, it is just frustrating.

If users use the app and therefore the alternative UI, then they are using a replacement UI. You get that right? Please say you are able to finally understand that.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #169 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Alright, I watched the demo vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ilvf..._embedded#t=86

All I have to say is, wow. That's balls. It really is. It's not a replacement as such. It's an app that offers an alternative to Apple's entire set of mobile telephony features. It looks like you can, in fact, bypass the iPhone's entire telephony interface, and just use GV.

It's not a replacement, but it's a broad and very far-reaching duplication of features that seem to give a different user experience than what Apple has. This is no simple dialer app. It seems like complete Google "Trojan Horse." It's as if Google duplicated a major part of the iPhone's OS and then offered that to users to use in place of Apple's original implementation. And really, it can certainly function as a "replacement." I can see why and how Apple used that term to describe it.

I'm not surprised Apple ended up rejecting this. As a user, I don't know how to feel about it, really. But I can certainly undertstand how this is unacceptable to Apple, and AT&T as well.

That was a demo video of GV Mobile, which is not the official GV app from Google. That was a third party app and was approved for sale by apple.

Actually, it is a good example though. Yes, it offers an alternative to Apple's dialer and other interfaces. It doesn't replace, as in remove, anything. It replaces, only if the users chooses to use it instead of the built in functions. But the built in functions remain.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #170 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Whoa there. Let's hold on a sec.

To my understanding GV did not replace Apple's interface. I should hope it didn't. If it did, then I'm all for Apple kicking that app to the curb.

It has been every GV user's contention that it was smply an alternative interface, like a lot of the dialer apps out there.

What is meant by "replace" anyway? Did GV lock the user out of the standard interface? Was the user not able to access Apple's standard interface?

I hope someone can clear this up once and for all.

My impression is a lot like yours, the word used doesn't really seem to fit the usual use of the word, but is probably still a valid use.

I think it depends on the intention behind the word replace. I'm pretty sure the regular phone app is still there, but the GV app can be used such that the regular phone app isn't necessary to those that want to use GV.

It would seem to me that Apple should have enough software and equipment to know whether or not this GV app is trying to be a VOIP app, for them to say they don't know seems to be a diversionary tactic. Every report I've seen suggests that GV isn't doing VOIP to a phone, that it's still using regular air time.
post #171 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

That was a demo video of GV Mobile, which is not the official GV app from Google. That was a third party app and was approved for sale by apple.

Actually, it is a good example though. Yes, it offers an alternative to Apple's dialer and other interfaces. It doesn't replace, as in remove, anything. It replaces, only if the users chooses to use it instead of the built in functions. But the built in functions remain.

Is there a vid available of the full app? I'd love to watch it.
post #172 of 280
Unfortunately, Apple is not the friendly guy next store that everyone seems to think they are. They care about their customers, but they are not prepared to join the fight against unreasonable data charges. As a partner of AT&T, with business deals that will continue long after the exclusivity ends, Apple is not about to start enabling the side-stepping of insanely high AT&T service charges. Even if the iPhone is available on Verizon next year(s), the usage charges will be similarly insane.

You're not going to see Apple approve applications that allow people to communicate WIDELY without using the pay-per-use features of the iPhone, such as SMS and Calling. Its just not going to happen, for as long as Apple can manage it. They need to have to pull with their carrier partners so they can go about their own schedule ( unlike any other mobile manufacturer in the world ), and they are not going to piss anyone off by enabling loop holes like Google Voice.

Guess again.
post #173 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Unfortunately, Apple is not the friendly guy next store that everyone seems to think they are. They care about their customers, but they are not prepared to join the fight against unreasonable data charges. As a partner of AT&T, with business deals that will continue long after the exclusivity ends, Apple is not about to start enabling the side-stepping of insanely high AT&T service charges. Even if the iPhone is available on Verizon next year(s), the usage charges will be similarly insane.

You're not going to see Apple approve applications that allow people to communicate WIDELY without using the pay-per-use features of the iPhone, such as SMS and Calling. Its just not going to happen, for as long as Apple can manage it. They need to have to pull with their carrier partners so they can go about their own schedule ( unlike any other mobile manufacturer in the world ), and they are not going to piss anyone off by enabling loop holes like Google Voice.

Guess again.

This is a sensible post. It about sums up my thoughts on the matter.
post #174 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?

Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.

wtf are you talking about? No developer has access to replacing Apple's UI. That's called a hack.

It doesn't matter if the GV app UI is giant dolphin whose tail you spin to make a call. Point is, it makes calls.

Therefor, bye bye.
post #175 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Is there a vid available of the full app? I'd love to watch it.

I doubt it, it was a closed beta.

Anyway, wanted to add to my previous response to you comments about the GV Mobile app (and by extension, the actual Google GV app).

Yes, they can act as replacements for most/all of the telephony/messaging features built into the iPhone OS. But they only thing you can accuse google of in this case is doing it all in one place. Even Apple doesn't do this, and requires two apps (phone and messages).

For almost all (maybe all) of the individual features that the GV app duplicates, there are individual apps approved that duplicate/replace/offer an alternative. But, none of them consolidate them al into a single interface. GV App does. So is that the threat? That Google did what others have done, but did it better? So well, that users might opt to use GV as a full replacement for the Apple functions?

I think so and is what I have been saying since the app was first rejected ( ok, not formally rejected but put into approval limbo). I would suggest to Apple, don't be afraid of GV. Beat them. Improve upon what you have and beat them. Of course, the real trojan horse is that the GV service (not the app) offer a lot for free that Apple will never be willing to offer for free (nor do I think the should) . But free is hard to beat so better to ban/delay the app?

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #176 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Unfortunately, Apple is not the friendly guy next store that everyone seems to think they are. They care about their customers, but they are not prepared to join the fight against unreasonable data charges. As a partner of AT&T, with business deals that will continue long after the exclusivity ends, Apple is not about to start enabling the side-stepping of insanely high AT&T service charges. Even if the iPhone is available on Verizon next year(s), the usage charges will be similarly insane.

You're not going to see Apple approve applications that allow people to communicate WIDELY without using the pay-per-use features of the iPhone, such as SMS and Calling. Its just not going to happen, for as long as Apple can manage it. They need to have to pull with their carrier partners so they can go about their own schedule ( unlike any other mobile manufacturer in the world ), and they are not going to piss anyone off by enabling loop holes like Google Voice.

Guess again.

It would allow free SMS and therefore by pass AT&T paid service, but there are other apps that allow exactly this.

It doesn't bypass (unless they were gong to include VoIP..maybe) the AT&T calling. Your calls still go over AT&T's voice lines and therefore you are still subject to whatever rate or fees they charge your for these calls in and or out. You do avoid there long distance rates, but you can use calling cards or alternative long distance providers for this already.

I do think you are right, it is about not allowing users to use for free what they can be charged for. I think only that you are wrong is what services are threatened. Apple gave two examples themselves..SMS and VVM. GV, if done well, would allow users to completely replace the built in functions for these two services. In countries outside of the US, when GV is available, it would allow users to drop these options and use the GV service for free.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #177 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

wtf are you talking about? No developer has access to replacing Apple's UI. That's called a hack.

Dead horse or brick wall, you decide. You will have little luck in explaining basic things like that.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #178 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

My impression is a lot like yours, the word used doesn't really seem to fit the usual use of the word, but is probably still a valid use.

I think it depends on the intention behind the word replace. I'm pretty sure the regular phone app is still there, but the GV app can be used such that the regular phone app isn't necessary to those that want to use GV.

It would seem to me that Apple should have enough software and equipment to know whether or not this GV app is trying to be a VOIP app, for them to say they don't know seems to be a diversionary tactic. Every report I've seen suggests that GV isn't doing VOIP to a phone, that it's still using regular air time.

The wording is interesting, but it seems valid to me as well.

Again, I'm not sure how to feel about it. Google seems to be infringing here in some way. At least if I were Apple that's certainly how I'd view it. It's an effort to duplicate Apple's entire telephony interface and functionality - but according to Google's standards, and it's cleverly offered as an app, as a "choice." Choice is fine, but this "alternative" can function as a complete replacement, which renders a key part of the iPhone OS completely irrelevant. It isn't like duplicating Apple's Voice Memo app or whatnot. This is a huge duplication, and it can be viewed as Google strong-arming its way onto the iPhone. It smacks of some kind of infringement, though I'm not sure what.

What's interesting, as I've said, is that the loophole Google used here is to offer it as an app. As a choice. Simply tap on it and boom, alternate reality. Sneaky, sneaky. Apple seems to want to try to catch them them at their own game, but the word "replacement" seems to be something that can be interpreted in more than one way.

Either way, I can certainly understand why Apple (notwithstanding how this affects AT&T) has an issue with this.
post #179 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

The wording is interesting, but it seems valid to me as well.

Again, I'm not sure how to feel about it. Google seems to be infringing here in some way. At least if I were Apple that's certainly how I'd view it. It's an effort to duplicate Apple's entire telephony interface and functionality - but according to Google's standards, and it's cleverly offered as an app, as a "choice." Choice is fine, but this "alternative" can function as a complete replacement, which renders a key part of the iPhone OS completely irrelevant. It isn't like duplicating Apple's Voice Memo app or whatnot. This is a huge duplication, and it can be viewed as Google strong-arming its way onto the iPhone. It smacks of some kind of infringement, though I'm not sure what.

What's interesting, as I've said, is that the loophole Google used here is to offer it as an app. As a choice. Simply tap on it and boom, alternate reality. Sneaky, sneaky. Apple seems to want to try to catch them them at their own game, but the word "replacement" seems to be something that can be interpreted in more than one way.

Either way, I can certainly understand why Apple (notwithstanding how this affects AT&T) has an issue with this.

And yet, for all of that, Apple is encouraging them to do it as a web app, which will still duplicate those same functions. Maybe not as nicely, but it should do the job.

The web app could function as just as full a replacement, so why no problem there? Maybe it would be limited compared to the native app in some way. Certainly, the two examples Apple gave of replaced functionality, SMS and VVM, would benefit from being native, if only because of Push, which a web app wouldn't have.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #180 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro View Post

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 can see clearly everyday what is happening. I use a work-provided Windows and Blackberry device every weekday, alongside my Mac and iPhone.

I think you're wrong in exactly the same way that bloggers and tech nerds went ape-shit when Apple didn't allow apps back in 2007, though it was clear to me at the time that Apple was still working the SDK. (Altho the idiotic thing is they really think their complaining caused Apple to release the SDK. Ha Ha.)

Now, it's just as clear to me that Apple is working on fixing/clarifying something internal/fundamental to the iPhone that is impacted by the way the GV app works. There's a strategic decision to be made, and that takes time as Apple sorts out their choices. And it may be that the end result is no GV App because Apple will provide some other way to get there. But it may also be that Apple allows GV after it fixes some underlying APIs so users can set parameters so that its Phone, Messages, and Contacts Apps work in a better and more integrated way with GV.

BTW, the Pre's across-the-device local data integration is one place to look for a clue as to what is needed. Right now, Apple only provides that somewhat in its search function.
"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 #181 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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.

Tell that to Martha Stewart. Who cares if it's called "perjury" or "lying to investigators and obstruction of justice" when you are sitting in a jail cell. One of the charges against Stewart included the assertion that public statements she made (to no one in particular) declaring her innocence were part of a conspiracy to mislead investors.

False statements don't have to be "sworn", "under oath". or made to particular officials to get you into serious legal trouble.
post #182 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

And yet, for all of that, Apple is encouraging them to do it as a web app, which will still duplicate those same functions. Maybe not as nicely, but it should do the job.

The web app could function as just as full a replacement, so why no problem there? Maybe it would be limited compared to the native app in some way. Certainly, the two examples Apple gave of replaced functionality, SMS and VVM, would benefit from being native, if only because of Push, which a web app wouldn't have.

Which is another good point.

It's my assumption that the web app will be less convienent to use and somehow more "limited" in some way, as you say. There's nothing like a native app, both for speed and ease of use. It would be hard (seems so, anyway) for a web app to trump a native app in that department, so Apple might feel less threatened in this regard.

See, this brings us into a new realm. While we want that "choice", at the same time we've got Apple's position on the matter (which is becoming a little clearer now), which is also understandable to a degree.

I agree with you when you say "Apple, don't be afraid of GV, just make what you offer even better." Sure, and I'd hope Apple does. But if GV does amount to some kind of infringement, then Apple might be less inclined to "compete", as GV isn't a competitor, but an infringement of some sort. But that's just one perspective, right? Apple is seeing whats possible here and might hopefully work with AT&T in bringing their own implementation of it to the table. But as pmz said, Apple might be reluctant to rock the AT&T boat just yet.

If Google wants to compete, then it might be better for them to offer this on a Google-based phone instead and *then* let the chips fall where they may. Because then, it isn't just about GV, but about the entire Google "user experience" that's also being put to the test. Perhaps in that case GV might be less popular, when it's wrapped in a Google interface.

This is just a lot of speculation, of course, but it's certainly helping me understand the deeper levels of this issue.
post #183 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Tell that to Martha Stewart. Who cares if it's called "perjury" or "lying to investigators and obstruction of justice" when you are sitting in a jail cell. One of the charges against Stewart included the assertion that public statements she made (to no one in particular) declaring her innocence were part of a conspiracy to mislead investors.

False statements don't have to be "sworn", "under oath". or made to particular officials to get you into serious legal trouble.

True enough. But abster2core was very condesending when he said some people need an education in US law and then gave this lesson by explaining it was perjury. Which, by actual definition, it is not.

You can still get in trouble for it though.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #184 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

I think so and is what I have been saying since the app was first rejected ( ok, not formally rejected but put into approval limbo). I would suggest to Apple, don't be afraid of GV. Beat them. Improve upon what you have and beat them. Of course, the real trojan horse is that the GV service (not the app) offer a lot for free that Apple will never be willing to offer for free (nor do I think the should) . But free is hard to beat so better to ban/delay the app?

OK, let's review Trojan Horses:

figurative a person or thing intended secretly to undermine or bring about the downfall of an enemy or opponent.
Computing a program designed to breach the security of a computer system while ostensibly performing some innocuous function.

-- from the OS X Dictionary app

The GV app is a Trojan Horse in both these senses:
  • It's designed to undermine Apple's iPhone user experience by providing an alternative UI that replaces Apple's user experience with Google's. All of Google's services have this intent: to replace the native user experience on any platform with Google's.
  • It's designed to capture as much user identifiable information as it can from each user so that Google can use that information for it's own purposes. Again, all Google's services have this intent: to capture as much information about you as they can so they can use that to serve their ends.

This is a very clear business strategy on Google's part. To undermine anyone that currently provides a computer user experience that Google can't control and to collect as much user identifiable information on everyone as they can.

They do this by offering free services that require you to hand over your data -- you contacts, your email, your documents, your search habits, etc. -- then use your data for their purposes. Currently, they use this to sell ads. It's unlikely that they will stop at that (or that they don't go beyond it already).

This isn't about Apple being concerned about being cut out of a little transactional income. This is about Apple being concerned about Google's control of the user experience and how that affects Apple in the long run.

It's also about why people are so foolish to hand over anything Google wants just because Google offers them a bit of candy.
post #185 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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?

I "debated the topic rationally" (Comment #61, page 2), and while my post could be called windy or worse, and no one has an obligation to respond directly to anyone else - and I am and will continue to be a Mac user - I did respectfully raise real issues which effect all iPhone and Touch users, and almost no "Apple defenders" have bothered to even deal with many of them anywhere in this discussion.

So it's "funny" how many A-fans seem incapable of going beyond parroting the company line, even if it is still my favorite tech company after all these years.

(Not to say much of the discussion hasn't been interesting within its bounds.)

Anyway, I may be a pundit without portfolio simply pouting about being ignored, but my point is it can be useful to both customers and company to admire without suspending the faculty of rational criticism and plugging one's ears when people bring up "inconvenient truths" you don't want to hear.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #186 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Apple has never and still absolutely does not make an explicit or implicit agreement with an iPhone buyer that such buyer can add software to the iPhone, excepting what is already provided at purchase and what Apple will provide via future updates (implicitly over the useful life, which is accepted as 2 years) or since July 2008, through third parties via its App Store and iTunes. Buyers should have no expectation that they can add software in any other way. Apple is selling a smartphone - a phone, an iPod, a web browser, and access to its App Store/iTunes Store. It is not a PC.

This is a very different model than that used for PCs. In the PC model, it is now well accepted that the PC vendor is providing a platform (Windows, Mac OS, some form of Linux, etc) that is open to any software created for that platform. That might never have been explicit but it is well-accepted.

Given that Apple has never advertised or promised freedom (beyond iTunes/App Store) to add software to its iPhone (such as in the PC model), there is no restraint of trade relative to software for its iPhone. It is not a monopoly, but a vertically-integrated system, which is clearly allowed and supported by law.

AT&T's submittal lays out that there are four parts involved: wireless device (iPhone), operating system (iPhone OS), applications (iTunes Store), and Internet connectivity (provided by AT&T). Apple is vertically-integrating the first three by itself, and partnering with AT&T to vertically-integrate the fourth part. The following is from AT&T's submittal, footnote 12, referring to part 4 (AT&T and Apple), but it applies equally as well within Apple's own system (parts 1-3).

"See Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36, 54-55, 57-58 (1977) (Vertical restrictions promote interbrand competition by allowing the manufacturer to achieve certain efficiencies in the distribution of his products. These redeeming virtues are implicit in every decision sustaining vertical restrictions under the rule of reason. Economists have identified a number of ways in which manufacturers can use such restrictions to compete more effectively against other manufacturers such as inducing retailers to make investment of capital and labor or engage in promotional activities, as well as ensuring product quality and preventing free riding. Such restrictions, in varying forms, are widely used in our free market economy. . . . [T]here is substantial scholarly and judicial authority supporting their economic utility. There is relatively little authority to the contrary.). See also Richard J. Wegener, et al, Restricted Distribution 2009: Thirtysomething Sylvania and the State of Non-Price Vertical Restraints, American Law Institute American Bar Association, SP050 ALI-ABA 43 (March 2009); William J. Kolasky, Jr., Antitrust Enforcement Guidelines for Strategic Alliances, Practicing Law Institute (July-August 1998)."

Again, if you don't like this vertically-integrated system of 3 parts or 4 parts, you are free to choose a wireless device alternative where only 2 parts are tied (device and OS) by a vendor, such as an unlocked HTC Android or Nokia Symbian or RIM Blackberry.

Appreciate your thoughtful response, Mark. I am not a lawyer but it seems important to me to note that Continental TV did not overturn any anti-competitive provision of the Sherman Anti-trust act. It affirmed an appeals court decision that Sylania was not violating Sherman "per se" as Continental had argued. The scope of the decision did not encompass "rule of reason" since that had not been originally argued.

The end result of Apple's marketing scheme is that developers have only one place to sell their iphone software, Apple. Any innovation that may run contrary to Apple's throttle hold on development or endangers theirs or ATT's revenue streams regardless of benefit for the end consumer falls into a black hole.

Apple thinks it can get away with it, and with most of the California delegation in their pocket one way or the other perhaps they can. But I am telling you that I want to be able to make use of the centralized number approach that Google offers with their product, and most particularly, something ATT completely denies me, the ability to block specific callers (telemarketers). The anti-competitive nature of Apple's scheme is preventing this benefit for all iphone users. The rise of the corporatocracy since Reagan/Clinton has encouraged big outfits like Apple to reason that they can get away with pretty much anything they want. And with forum members such as found here mouthing the oft repeated sentiment that its "Apple's phone and they can do what they damned well want with it," it is little wonder to me that Apple should think this way. But I goddamn beg to differ. The iphone is sold in a system to members of a society. Apple gets taxpayer funded benefits that protects their inventions from unlicensed use, protects their exclusive use of publicly owned spectra, and provides all of the infrastructure that allows Apple to exist as a concern. Apple is not entirely free to do whatever in the hell it wants with its product. It has to conform to law.

Personally I do not care HOW many poorly applicable cites the shyster from ATT pulls out of his pants, Apple is engaged in anti-competitive behavior with the App Store on the one hand and the threat of a bricked phone in the other. Consumers are being denied fully functional flash sites and several other benefits solely due to Apple's monopolistic market in applications and the only reason for it is protection of the Apple revenue stream from competing innovation.

The saddest part of this is that the reason the government was provoked into this (admitedly limp) action was because the complainant is Google. I am no more enthused about Google's ability to command the attention of the FCC than I am about Apple's. They are both huge corporations and should be monitored closely for malfeasance by regulators, not be given the key to the city every time they desire government intrusion for their personal benefit.
post #187 of 280
I really think it quite simply two fold: Apple wants to preserve their built in functionality and not be outclassed by other programming options. They also want to preserve the revenue stream of the iPhones built in functionality for as long as possible. They realize that the future consists of a single iPhone data charge that covers all function of the phone over any network. That has it's competitive limits, and ultimately means less monthly revenue from the product > less interest from carriers > less flexability > less subsidy.
post #188 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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 are correct in part.

As I originally posted, i.e., For those of you who have denigrated comments by accusing Apple of lying, perhaps a little course on your judicial system is in order. To openly declare that Apple would overtly commit perjury is a testament of not only ignorance but stupidity." was in a general response to a comment made earlier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manos del destino View Post

This response is a lie. But here's the lucky part for Apple: the FCC, FTC, and just about every other govt. regulatory body charged with oversight of corporate behavior are so full of cowards and layabouts that nothing substantive will come of any of this no matter how much Apple lies in depositions.

I had taken the letter from Apple as being a deposition, and as by definition, a deposition is taken under oath.

However, now having access to the letters to the FCC, it would appear that although they are not depositions, lying to their questions in any format could have serious consequences. One that Apple would surely consider in light of their need to cooperate with the agency if they ever wanted to continue to provide products that need their approval.

And if Apple were to be subpoenaed in front of the FCC and lied under oath in testimony, depositions or supported materials, it would be perjury.

"In the United States, for example,The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official."
post #189 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manos del destino View Post

The anti-competitive nature of Apple's scheme is preventing this benefit for all iphone users. The rise of the corporatocracy since Reagan/Clinton has encouraged big outfits like Apple to reason that they can get away with pretty much anything they want. And with forum members such as found here mouthing the oft repeated sentiment that its "Apple's phone and they can do what they damned well want with it," it is little wonder to me that Apple should think this way. But I goddamn beg to differ. The iphone is sold in a system to members of a society. Apple gets taxpayer funded benefits that protects their inventions from unlicensed use, protects their exclusive use of publicly owned spectra, and provides all of the infrastructure that allows Apple to exist as a concern. Apple is not entirely free to do whatever in the hell it wants with its product. It has to conform to law.
[...]
The saddest part of this is that the reason the government was provoked into this (admitedly limp) action was because the complainant is Google. I am no more enthused about Google's ability to command the attention of the FCC than I am about Apple's. They are both huge corporations and should be monitored closely for malfeasance by regulators, not be given the key to the city every time they desire government intrusion for their personal benefit.

The last part of your post comes very close to recognizing the real problem here, but your analysis makes the mistake of reversing the true position of the two companies.

There is pretty much zero danger, at the present time, of Apple controlling how people access information on a large scale. There is however, a great danger of Google doing so now and in the future. Google's intentions to control how you access information and what you can do with it, as well as who ultimately controls it, are on par with Microsoft's attempt to control how user's accessed the internet by undermining Netscape, and both companies were/are in a position to be able to do so; Apple is in no position to be able to do this widely, and should not be the focus of concern at this time.

The GV app, and all other Google apps, tools and services are all about controlling how you access information and what you can do with it, and what they can do with it. In that context, Apple's attempt to control the iPhone user experience (and it's not at all about revenue streams, per se) ought to be of very little concern to regulators.
post #190 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

You are correct in part.

As I originally posted, i.e., For those of you who have denigrated comments by accusing Apple of lying, perhaps a little course on your judicial system is in order. To openly declare that Apple would overtly commit perjury is a testament of not only ignorance but stupidity." was in a general response to a comment made earlier:



I had taken the letter from Apple as being a deposition, and as by definition, a deposition is taken under oath.

However, now having access to the letters to the FCC, it would appear that although they are not depositions, lying to their questions in any format could have serious consequences. One that Apple would surely consider in light of their need to cooperate with the agency if they ever wanted to continue to provide products that need their approval.

And if Apple were to be subpoenaed in front of the FCC and lied under oath in testimony, depositions or supported materials, it would be perjury.

"In the United States, for example,The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official."

Absolutely. A charge of perjury then comes down to whether Apple believed or had reason to believe they were giving their response under penalty of perjury or under oath. I don't see anything in the request for information or response that would make me believe they were or thought they were, but it is possible. Regardless of if it would be legally defined as perjury, lying to the FCC in a formal response would and should carry penalties. They are a government regulatory body and as such has the authority to sanction and penalize a company for lying, which would not be in Apple's best interests, as they rely on the FCC for approval.

In any event, I do not think Apple lied in their response. I do think they intentionally gave answers that could be misleading. For example, their use of the word 'replace'. Even though they clearly and only give examples of their "UI being replaced" that show they mean replaced as in given an alternative, many interpret it as meaning Apple functionality is actually removed and replaced by Google's app. This is obviously not the case with even a cursory reading, but none the less, it has been interpreted as such by some.

Actually, even their examples are misleading.
Quote:
For example, on an iPhone, the Phone icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apples mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apples Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apples Visual Voicemail

They state that the GV app would replace Apple's VVM, intentionally leading some to take it to mean the Apple VVM is removed. But then they continue to explain that they mean it is actually replaced because calls are routed through a separate GV telephone number that stores the voice mail. This makes it sound like calls are being rerouted to the GV phone number, when in fact the calls that go to the GV Voice Mail system are only calls that were made to the GV phone number. It would be identical to you using an app that allowed you to retrieve voice main left on your home answering machine, which were left when people called your home phone number. The only difference is that the GV service first rings your home phone or work phone or iPhone. If anyone direct dials your cell phone number, their messages will be left on your Apple VVM server. Nothing is rerouted in that sense and Apple's VVM is clearly not disabled, as they state, just made redundant with a free service. It is 'disabled' only in the sense that if it isn't used, it is disabled. Note that they say 'disabled' as an example of the voice mail being stored elsewhere. Denying or delaying the app for this reason would be the same as denying an app that automated listening to you home answering machine.

Their second example is similarly misleading.
Quote:
Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hubreplacing the iPhones text messaging feature.

Again, the iPhones text messaging feature is only replaced if a user choose not to use it and exclusively uses the GV SMS feature. Any SMS that are sent to your iPhone phone number will appear in the iPhones built in messaging app. The GV receives only SMS sent to your GV number. Someone not paying attention, might read the work 'replacing' and think it meant the iPhone's Messages app was removed. But again, it is only 'replaced' in the sense that a user can use it as a replacement. They could opt to use both or neither or the built in option.

Then there is their statement about the user contacts list on the iPhone.
Quote:
In addition, the iPhone users entire Contacts database is transferred to Googles servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways.

Unbelievably, some have read this to mean the contacts data is sent to Google without the user's consent or knowledge. This is the most vexing misreading or intentional fabrication. It obviously says nothing of the sort. While this could be the case, I would have my doubts. Whether it is the case or not, Apple's statement certainly contains no such accusation.

They state that they "have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways". This is an incredibly vague statement. Did they even request this consent from Google? If they did, what reason would Google have for not giving such assurances? If Google was the malevolent entity that some believe them to be, why would they not simply give the assurances and then break their word? What is Apple's definition of 'appropriate'? I am sure Google feels they would only use it appropriately, even if we or Apple would not.

Again, I don't think Apple actually lied in their statement to the FCC. I think the were intentionally vague and used language that was open to interpretation, with the knowledge that some would misconstrue the meaning.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #191 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

OK, let's review Trojan Horses:

figurative a person or thing intended secretly to undermine or bring about the downfall of an enemy or opponent.
Computing a program designed to breach the security of a computer system while ostensibly performing some innocuous function.

-- from the OS X Dictionary app

The GV app is a Trojan Horse in both these senses:
  • It's designed to undermine Apple's iPhone user experience by providing an alternative UI that replaces Apple's user experience with Google's. All of Google's services have this intent: to replace the native user experience on any platform with Google's.
  • It's designed to capture as much user identifiable information as it can from each user so that Google can use that information for it's own purposes. Again, all Google's services have this intent: to capture as much information about you as they can so they can use that to serve their ends.

I would disagree with both of your interpretations, but in either case at that point it comes down to opinion. In my limited personal experience, I have no reason to believe in the benevolence or malevolevnce of either Google of Apple.

The first case you presented, by definition requires it to be secret. Google make no secret about their desire to provde an alternative to features offered natievly, on PC's Mac and cell phones. It also requires the desire to undermine or attempt to bring the 'downfall of an opponent'. Providing an alternative does not undermine Apple, especially if the native features are left in place for the user to use. providing an alternative is simply to provide the user with choice.

The second case, that it is a program designed to breach the security of a computer system barely requires a response. While you may feel that they want to collect all of your information for nefarious purposes, this is only your opinion. If you use google applications, you agree to their terms for the use of your data. I don't see anywhere in those terms that says they will use or abuse my data nor collect it without my consent. An at minimum, there is nothing that appears to breach any security, computer or otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This is a very clear business strategy on Google's part. To undermine anyone that currently provides a computer user experience that Google can't control and to collect as much user identifiable information on everyone as they can.

They do this by offering free services that require you to hand over your data -- you contacts, your email, your documents, your search habits, etc. -- then use your data for their purposes. Currently, they use this to sell ads. It's unlikely that they will stop at that (or that they don't go beyond it already).

This is opinion and does not seem entirely based on fact. The only have access to documents that you store on their systems and they are clear in their terms that you retain ownership of them. Also, contacts are only made available to them if you make them available. I have a grand total of 3 contacts in my GMail account, and they are only there because they aee friends that use gmail. All of my other contacts are stored locally and not on gmails servers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This isn't about Apple being concerned about being cut out of a little transactional income. This is about Apple being concerned about Google's control of the user experience and how that affects Apple in the long run.

Possibly very true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It's also about why people are so foolish to hand over anything Google wants just because Google offers them a bit of candy.

This is good advise for any service or company.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #192 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

It replaced nothing. That word was intentionally selected to invoke a response from the simple minded

And how is it that you 'know' this? Do you work for Google or the FCC or Apple?

The facts are simple. Apple stated in a document to the FCC which they also made public that GV REPLACES the UI. They could get in a lot of trouble for lying on that document and it was undoubtedly reviewed by a team of lawyers.

So do we believe that 'replaces' means 'replaces' which is what Apple's lawyers stated or should we believe a loud-mouthed anti-Apple whiner on a public forum who doesn't have any clue about the system, the approval process or any of the legalities of the matter?

As soon as you provide some evidence to back up your position, then maybe you'll have some credibility. Until then, I choose to believe that 'replace' means 'replace' rather than some wild conspiracy theory you've dreamed up.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #193 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005
Apple has never and still absolutely does not make an explicit or implicit agreement with an iPhone buyer that such buyer can add software to the iPhone, excepting what is already provided at purchase and what Apple will provide via future updates (implicitly over the useful life, which is accepted as 2 years) or since July 2008, through third parties via its App Store and iTunes. Buyers should have no expectation that they can add software in any other way. Apple is selling a smartphone - a phone, an iPod, a web browser, and access to its App Store/iTunes Store. It is not a PC.

This is a very different model than that used for PCs. In the PC model, it is now well accepted that the PC vendor is providing a platform (Windows, Mac OS, some form of Linux, etc) that is open to any software created for that platform. That might never have been explicit but it is well-accepted.

Given that Apple has never advertised or promised freedom (beyond iTunes/App Store) to add software to its iPhone (such as in the PC model), there is no restraint of trade relative to software for its iPhone. It is not a monopoly, but a vertically-integrated system, which is clearly allowed and supported by law.

Does your logic as you see it also apply to the iPod Touch, which involves no user contract and no third-party corporations like AT&T?

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #194 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The first case you presented, by definition requires it to be secret. Google make no secret about their desire to provde an alternative to features offered natievly, on PC's Mac and cell phones. It also requires the desire to undermine or attempt to bring the 'downfall of an opponent'. Providing an alternative does not undermine Apple, especially if the native features are left in place for the user to use. providing an alternative is simply to provide the user with choice.

It's "secret" in the sense that Google does not publicly avow their desire to completely control the user experience of access to information -- your own information as well as what might be considered "public information" -- yet, it is clear from their actions that this is their goal; clear to anyone who examines the matter objectively, at least. It completely undermines Apple if Google controls this user experience, and in the long run, Google's success will undermine choice and privacy.

It's somewhat amazing to me that anyone could not see the danger that Google represents in this regard; although, many denied the danger from Microsoft in the past, so, I suppose I should not really be surprised in this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The second case, that it is a program designed to breach the security of a computer system barely requires a response. While you may feel that they want to collect all of your information for nefarious purposes, this is only your opinion. If you use google applications, you agree to their terms for the use of your data. I don't see anywhere in those terms that says they will use or abuse my data nor collect it without my consent. An at minimum, there is nothing that appears to breach any security, computer or otherwise.

Again, this "objection" is mostly a semantic quibble. Google's terms of service allow them to do pretty much whatever they want with your data, and they are subject to change at any time they decide they want to do something with it that might not be strictly allowed. Clearly, GV and all other Google apps and services serve, in the long run, a single purpose: to allow Google to collect as much user identifiable information about people as possible. The ones that don't really serve this purpose get dropped.

It "breaches the security" in the sense that most people don't even recognize the danger in what they are giving up -- i.e., it's a brilliant bit of social engineering that gets people to hand over pretty much everything there is to know about them without them even thinking about it or realizing what they have given away. In other words, when you hand over your contacts, email, telephony, documents, messaging, etc. to Google, you've been "hacked", and not only do you not realize it, you're actually left happy because they gave you a bit of tech candy to play with to divert your attention from what they just got you to do.
post #195 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And how is it that you 'know' this? Do you work for Google or the FCC or Apple?

That it was intentional is my opinion. That the simple minded will misinterpret? Well, the proof is in the pudding.
Edit:How do I know what they meant by 'replace'? Easy. I can read. Try it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The facts are simple. Apple stated in a document to the FCC which they also made public that GV REPLACES the UI. They could get in a lot of trouble for lying on that document and it was undoubtedly reviewed by a team of lawyers.

So do we believe that 'replaces' means 'replaces' which is what Apple's lawyers stated or should we believe a loud-mouthed anti-Apple whiner on a public forum who doesn't have any clue about the system, the approval process or any of the legalities of the matter?

No, you should believe Apple. Please read their own examples of 'replacing'. They are quite clear and make no mention of their functionality being removed. So, by all means, believe them. They were clear in their example. And see if they describe their features being removed. They do not. They describe them being replaced by not being used.

To help you, merriam webster has a definition of 'replace' as the following:
to take the place of especially as a substitute or successor
As in, a user using the application would be using it as a substitute for the native features.

As I said, please read the statement yourself, but perhaps with someone to help you. It should not be as difficult as you want to make it.

As far as the rest of your inaccurate statements, well, no I am not an anti-Apple whiner. I have used Apple products since before there were Macs, quite likely long before you. I have been a member on these boards before you probably knew they existed and joined because I am a huge Apple fan. I have engaged in long debates defending Apple and their practices. But you should learn, being a fan does not mean having to be stupid. It does not mean turning of your brain. It does not mean having to always agree with Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As soon as you provide some evidence to back up your position, then maybe you'll have some credibility. Until then, I choose to believe that 'replace' means 'replace' rather than some wild conspiracy theory you've dreamed up.

Again, it is all in their own statement. Just read the damn thing. If you are going to blindly defend Apple you look foolish. At least understand your own argument..also, try to actually understand the word 'replace'.

And I don't think you understand conspiracy. I never claimed they had a conspiracy. I do believe their choice of words were selected for people just like you.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #196 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

I really think it quite simply two fold: Apple wants to preserve their built in functionality and not be outclassed by other programming options. They also want to preserve the revenue stream of the iPhones built in functionality for as long as possible. They realize that the future consists of a single iPhone data charge that covers all function of the phone over any network. That has it's competitive limits, and ultimately means less monthly revenue from the product > less interest from carriers > less flexability > less subsidy.

Agree that that's Apple's view of the future. Note that Apple at one time called the cell carriers "orifices" and expressed that Internet access over cellular should be like Internet access over wired (cable/fiber/satellite). Note that Apple wanted to sell the iPhone without subsidy, and insisted carriers offer "unlimited" data plans. Thus, I don't think Apple particularly cares to protect the current voice plan revenue stream. (Data is a different story as Apple would want to get a piece of that revenue stream.)

We also know that Apple is not afraid of cannibalizing its own product, but they do it on their own timetable, when they think the pieces are all in place (and of course, when there's enough profit margin and a large enough market to sell into). (In some cases like with Apple TV, they are wrong and are too soon, providing not enough functionality for the price.) But it also doesn't bother them that others rush in sooner with not-fully-thought-out-for-the-user solutions. Maybe GV falls into that category (i.e. Apple sees it as a half-baked solution because it's not fully integrated into the handsets apps), but in this case, Apple sees here a long-term strategic direction and something that they should fully integrate into their device, so as to eliminate user confusion (and underlying data confusion for other Apps). Thus, the delay. That's one possibility.

Another possibility is that Apple sees in GV the seed of its own demise (since it is currently dependent on subsidies from the carriers), so it sees no reason to be at the forefront of the revolution. Let it start on some other handset, while Apple works to prepare its next software update (where GV functionality is fully integrated) and handset for a world with lowered or no subsidies. One thing that points in this direction is the "coincidental" timing of the removal of Schmidt from Apple's board. I see it as Apple being more concerned about collusion with than competition against Google. There's a lot of interesting food for thought in this situation if people would get less emotional and think through what the potential outcomes could be.

Just to be clear, I'm all for GV-type functionality myself, assuming it was easy-to-use. I don't use iPhone SMS because it's not worth how much AT&T charges for it. And I don't use any of the SMS apps because they don't fully replicate the built-in SMS experience. And if Google's GV was available, I would install it, as I'm techy enough to make it work. But I can see Apple's concern with such an app for the mass market, as I could see it totally confusing my wife as to why she wouldn't tap Phone/Messages to make a phone call/SMS but tap GV instead. She'd say when I add a contact using Contacts, does it show up for GV? If I add a contact in GV, does it show up for Phone? And if it's yes to both of those, why doesn't it work the same way for received Voicemail or SMS messages? How many Apps do I need to check for Voicemail and Messages; why isn't it integrated?
"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 #197 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

Does your logic as you see it also apply to the iPod Touch, which involves no user contract and no third-party corporations like AT&T?

Yes, for the iPod touch, the first three parts (device, OS, apps) are just as vertically-integrated as for the iPhone. And the fourth part, broadband internet access is wifi-only, so it is not vertically-integrated at all. But even for cellular broadband, this fourth part is not always integrated, as Apple does sell the iPhone unlocked in some places.

After all, it's still called iPod and not Mac. And for iPods, Apple makes no representation that you can install software from sources other than its iTunes software, and its App Store. (Of course, you can drag files over from a Mac/PC in "hard disk mode", but they don't run.)

This is why I'm really curious as to whether the rumored Apple tablet is a Mac or an iPod, or an entirely new category. If it's an iPod, the bloggers and tech-nerds will go ape-shit all over again; we ain't seen nothin' yet.
"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 #198 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The last part of your post comes very close to recognizing the real problem here, but your analysis makes the mistake of reversing the true position of the two companies.

There is pretty much zero danger, at the present time, of Apple controlling how people access information on a large scale. There is however, a great danger of Google doing so now and in the future. Google's intentions to control how you access information and what you can do with it, as well as who ultimately controls it, are on par with Microsoft's attempt to control how user's accessed the internet by undermining Netscape, and both companies were/are in a position to be able to do so; Apple is in no position to be able to do this widely, and should not be the focus of concern at this time.

The GV app, and all other Google apps, tools and services are all about controlling how you access information and what you can do with it, and what they can do with it. In that context, Apple's attempt to control the iPhone user experience (and it's not at all about revenue streams, per se) ought to be of very little concern to regulators.

Bingo.
"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 #199 of 280
Tulkas, the problem I have with you is your continued negative attitude toward virtually everything that Apple presents or to anything that its supporters may argue. No matter what.

How do you expect anybody from Apple to want to consider your points of view under such circumstances? The idea that Apple can do no right does not fly well in a home basically built by Apple and its followers.

Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner threw up because they didn't like how she cooked the turkey, that the portions were too small or why weren't they consulted on what best to serve.

As part the family, so to speak, wouldn't you expect the kids to stand up for her? They have every reason to do so. Moreso in fact than you have to be so disparaging.

Please do me a favor.

Reread the response to Question 1. There is nothing nefarious here. The app has yet to be rejected or approved. It is still being reviewed. This is not just any ordinary iPhone app. As was submitted for review, the iphone app does things nobody really has seen before, or knows how or what it does or can do. It just doesn't adhere fully to the the guidelines of the SDK as it has been written today. And trust the tens of thousands of us who have read and accepted the conditions that it has set forth, it is quite clearly described.

Not that it is doing something badly or illegally. It is just out of range of what was expected and thus Apple's request to ponder on these "…several new issues and questions…" that have been raised, certainly seems appropriate and justified.

As has been evidenced recently, much of the uproar re the iPhone App/Store has been basically to do for nothing. The fact that a couple of developers have spoken out, only to be basically silenced up to now, should tell us something. If Apple is lying, why isn't there an onslaught of counter statements, in particular, from those developers that were so vocal before?
post #200 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Tulkas, the problem I have with you is your continued negative attitude toward virtually everything that Apple presents or to anything that its supporters may argue. No matter what.

That is as odd as it is strange. In general, as a huge Apple fan and long time customer, I generally have a very positive attitude towards Apple. That you see my attitude as consistently negative, likely reflects that you tend to hang out in threads that might even hint at criticizing Apple, their partners or policies. I will comment in some of these threads, sometimes to defend Apple and sometimes to criticize. It just depends on if I view their actions as right. I don't put aside my brain or ideals just because it involves Apple, as some zealots will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

How do you expect anybody from Apple to want to consider your points of view under such circumstances? The idea that Apple can do no right does not fly well in a home basically built by Apple and its followers.

The circumstances that I do openly criticize Apple? Generally, I would expect people to honestly weigh what I may say, ignore it or debate it. In some case, I expect some will just blindly reject anything the see as 'anti-Apple'. I don't have time for unthinking zealots.

It is very, very telling that you used the term 'Apple followers'. A company should have customers and perhaps fans..even hard core fans, which I would consider myself. A religion or cult has followers. Zealots among them are unreasonable and will defend regardless of right or wrong. Telling indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner threw up because they didn't like how she cooked the turkey, that the portions were too small or why weren't they consulted on what best to serve.

As part the family, so to speak, wouldn't you expect the kids to stand up for her? They have every reason to do so. Moreso in fact than you have to be so disparaging.

If her cooking is making everyone sick, she should be told. 'Standing up' for her and ignoring the problem is ignorant and will likely get someone killed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Please do me a favor.

Reread the response to Question 1. There is nothing nefarious here. The app has yet to be rejected or approved. It is still being reviewed. This is not just any ordinary iPhone app. As was submitted for review, the iphone app does things nobody really has seen before, or knows how or what it does or can do. It just doesn't adhere fully to the the guidelines of the SDK as it has been written today. And trust the tens of thousands of us who have read and accepted the conditions that it has set forth, it is quite clearly described.

Agreed, except that if it did actually violate the terms of the SDK, then Apple would have said as much in the statement and would have rejected it outright instead of putting it into some state of limbo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Not that it is doing something badly or illegally. It is just out of range of what was expected and thus Apple's request to ponder on these "several new issues and questions" that have been raised, certainly seems appropriate and justified.

and this is the real reason. GV presents concerns they had not previously considered or accounted for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

As has been evidenced recently, much of the uproar re the iPhone App/Store has been basically to do for nothing. The fact that a couple of developers have spoken out, only to be basically silenced up to now, should tell us something. If Apple is lying, why isn't there an onslaught of counter statements, in particular, from those developers that were so vocal before?

I never said they were lying. Not all of the developers have been silenced, though some have been shown to be in the wrong and others, Apple has taken it upon themselves to review the issue again.

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply

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

...sometimes it's both
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple responds to FCC inquiry over Google Voice dilemma