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 6

post #201 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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.

Apple has customers and fans. Followers are those that reside here along with the trollers.

Quote:
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.

'Threw up' was for poetic effect. Perhaps, overly criticize would have been better. How the food was cooked, how much was served or complaining for not being part of the menu making wouldn't kill anybody. Question is if they hate it so much, why do they keep coming back. But free-loaders do that don't they?

Quote:
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.

But nobody said it did. And why is it in a 'state of limbo?

Quote:
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.

Virtually all have been shown in be in error. I would point out again, where are all of them now? One would expect some response to counter Apple's response if Apple was not telling he truth.
post #202 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

what a very thoughtful post.

Some people prefer to think and make decisions on their own.

Some people need to be told what to think, what to use, what to do. I have no respect for those people.

So think and make your own decision and buy a different phone.

Frankly it's a tempest in a teapot. The total number of Google voice users are tiny. 99% of the people in an uproar aren't even in the beta.
post #203 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Google Voice was not developed with the iPhone as a target for competition. It just so happens that Google Voice offers things the iPhone does not on its own; it is a compelling and free product that Apple is too scared to allow as fair competition.

Yes. because Android is not a competing product...

Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...
post #204 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Apple has customers and fans. Followers are those that reside here along with the trollers.

See, again. very telling. 'Follower' see 'them' and 'us'. That is the problem with fanhood turning into a religion.

As someone who has 'resided' here for many, many years more than you, I can say that there certainly are followers and trolls and haters. There are also fans, critics, passer-bys, etc. It is more than black and white. Apple does not always happen to be right, just because they are Apple.

It used to be funny when people said I was a Mac zealot. The way some of the new wave of Apple fans act, it has taken on a new meaning. Less cute nick name and more actual description. Cultist might be a better term for some. Scary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

'Threw up' was for poetic effect. Perhaps, overly criticize would have been better. How the food was cooked, how much was served or complaining for not being part of the menu making wouldn't kill anybody. Question is if they hate it so much, why do they keep coming back. But free-loaders do that don't they?

If those 'free-loaders' have given over a large portion of their disposable income to 'mom', them mom should be open to suggestions. And her family should be mature enough to recognize when those criticisms are valid instead of throwing a fit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

But nobody said it did. And why is it in a 'state of limbo?

So then you assumed it?

limbo, as in neither here nor there, neither hot nor cold, neither approved nor rejected. "Still under review" and "pondering". Limbo.

"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 #205 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

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.

I see. So 'example' is another one of those words that you want to create your own meaning for.

If I say that I have owned a number of cars and as an example, my current car is red, would you infer that EVERY car I've ever owned is red? Of course not, but that's how you're trying to interpret Apple's statement.

Similarly, just because the examples Apple gave behaved in a certain way does not mean that EVERY app behaves in the same way. They are EXAMPLES.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yes. because Android is not a competing product...

Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...

Ding, ding, ding, ding.... You win the kewpie doll.

Interesting that the Mac bashers seem to forget that simple issue.

It's OK for them to call Apple a 'phone monopoly' when there are 6 major phone platforms and Apple has a single digit market share, but it's OK for Google to have the overwhelming lion's share of search advertising revenue - and then using that money to expand into other markets.

Hypocrites.
"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 #206 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

So think and make your own decision and buy a different phone.

No, thanks for the offer anyway. I am quite happy with the iPhone. Disappointed with some of Apple recent policies, but still a Mac/Apple fan and likely will always be.


Why do some people always need to resort this idiot response? What are we, five again? Going to take your toys and go home next?

"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 #207 of 280
There seems to be some basic misunderstandings of what Google Voice is as a service...forget about Apps for a second. For the record I am a Google Voice (the service) user.

Google Voice "The Service" gives you all these features -- SMS, Voicemail transciption, etc. If you are a user of Google Voice "The Service" all of your voicemails are going to Google Voice mailbox, etc. This is entirely distinct from anything your phone does, any applications on your phone, what type of phone you have, etc.

Apples local Iphone centric features are replaced by the user signing up for Google Voice "The Service"...which anyone can do. When you sign up for Google Voice the service, it is because you want to use Google Voice the service, because Google Voice the service offers very nice call management. As a Google Voice user, you explicitly do not want to use local, native management features, that is why you signed up for Google Voice the service.

ALL of the above -- is completely separate from having a Google Voice app on your phone. As a user of Google Voice, you are using Google Voice the service whether or not you have any App installed anywhere, you use it on your home phone, you use it on your business phones, and you use it on your cell phone. Your incoming calls are coming through Google Voice, your voicemails are being taken by Google Voice, etc. It's a phone management tool.

What the App does is give you easy access to your Google Voice account, as has been mentioned getting notified when you get voicemails, etc, and making it slightly easier to call out using Google Voice the service. But regardless of whether you have an app or not, using Apples phraseology as soon as you signed up for and began using Google Voice the service, you already "Replaced" things like the Iphone VVM. Apple has zero control over that.

Google releasing an app for the Iphone is to make it easier to access and use Google Voice the service from the Iphone. Apple blocking the app from the Iphone is to make it less pleasant for Iphone users to access Google Voice the service. But just so everyone is clear, things like VVM are "replaced" either way -- whether there is an app or not, the service takes care of all that.
post #208 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Why do some people always need to resort this idiot response? What are we, five again? Going to take your toys and go home next?

The response ('if you don't like Apple/AT&T, then buy a different phone') was right on the money.

Apple offers a product. You get to choose to buy it or not to buy it. That is the extent of your freedom and that's how a free market works. You do NOT have the authority to dictate how Apple should sell or support the product.
"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 #209 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yes. because Android is not a competing product...

Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...

So you'll give up Google Search in Safari on the iPHone?
You'll give up YouTube on the iPHone?
And probably the most used App on any phone ever. You'll give up Google Maps and directions on the iPHone.

Google has already "dumped" all of the Free Apps as you call them on the iPhone and iPhone users love them.

If you're going to trash someone take a look at your own iPhone and see how much you already rely on Google and would be willing to give up if Google decided to pull them from your phone.
post #210 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

No, thanks for the offer anyway. I am quite happy with the iPhone. Disappointed with some of Apple recent policies, but still a Mac/Apple fan and likely will always be.

Why do some people always need to resort this idiot response? What are we, five again? Going to take your toys and go home next?

Because companies change behavior most often when revenues take a hit.

Besides, being outraged without the moral conviction to actually change your own behavior to influence the company in question is equally if not more idiotic and certainly far less deserving of respect.

Like it or not, Android and therefore Google is an Apple competitor. Your lame excuses that the GV app does not "replace" the base iphone app doesn't wash given that the entire intent is to move the user from other ecosystems (including the iPhone) into the Google Voice ecosystem where Google can attempt to monetize the eyeballs in some fashion. Google isn't a charity so when they give something away, there's specific advantage for them. It's also often to the advantage of the user. It is not often to the advantage to their competitors. Of which Apple is one.

In any case, GV functionality, like VVM, should be easy to replicate. Especially for AT&T. The problem for AT&T and other telephony companies is that this is either where they make money or use as a competitive advantage (here the iPhone and Apple applies). Google, who doesn't care about either, gives it away because it can afford to and it doesn't impact their own monopoly revenue stream.

Same for Apple in the iPod world...but I view Apple as far more vulnerable than either MS or Google because of its hardware based business model. But I also do understand why some folks are scared/mad at Apple for pissing in their revenue stream by minimizing the commercial value of content on iTunes. Apple uses it's monopoly power on MPs players to force content providers to negotiate on favorable terms for Apple. Good for Apple. Good for Apple customers. Not so good for media companies.

Folks really upset about that don't buy iPods or use iTunes. If you're that upset about GV and the app store, I suggest you do the same. If not, then you'll just have to accept it when folks call you on empty protestations.

Besides, Google could work with Apple to integrate GV into the basic phone app. It's not like GMail isn't a top tier provider for mail. Then the iPhone user base stays within the iPhone ecosystem when on the iPhone and within the GV one when on other platforms.
post #211 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yes. because Android is not a competing product...

Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...

On your high horse in yet another posting.

Apple is already hosting all of the Great Free Apps that come on the iPhone.
post #212 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I see. So 'example' is another one of those words that you want to create your own meaning for.

No stick to the accepted definition. Just like 'replaced'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

If I say that I have owned a number of cars and as an example, my current car is red, would you infer that EVERY car I've ever owned is red? Of course not, but that's how you're trying to interpret Apple's statement.

No, but if you say your have owned red cars and you say "for example, my current car is red" that would make sense.

If, to demonstrate the number of cars you have owned or that you have owned cars, you give an example of your car being red, it would just make you dumb. Its colour is not an example of what you are trying to demonstrate. When giving an example, it usually helps for it to be an example of what you are trying to demonstrate. Examples should be relevant, not useless side information.

This is precisely what Apple did in their statement, as they are not idiots. They gave relevant examples.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Similarly, just because the examples Apple gave behaved in a certain way does not mean that EVERY app behaves in the same way. They are EXAMPLES.

Uh yeah, that is the point. They are Apple own examples to describe how the app 'replaces' Apple's interface. Exactly the point. That their own description describes a situation where the user chooses to use an alternative. You think if they are gong to accuse google of something and then given an example, they would choose an example that actually demonstrates their point. You know, since that is sort of the point of an example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Interesting that the Mac bashers seem to forget that simple issue.

It's OK for them to call Apple a 'phone monopoly' when there are 6 major phone platforms and Apple has a single digit market share, but it's OK for Google to have the overwhelming lion's share of search advertising revenue - and then using that money to expand into other markets.

Hypocrites.

See, that is your problem. A lack or critical thinking and basic understanding.

Seeing fault with Apple and stating as much does not make one a Mac Basher...(especially when the fault the are referencing is the iPhone). But, you make it obvious why this escapes you.

Who said Google's search monopoly is OK? They might well be investigated and if it is found they are in a monopoly position and are abusing, then nail the f*ckers to the wall. If that did happen, I expect the will be blindly stupid google nuthuggers calling me a google hater. But, some people are just idiots that way.

"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 #213 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

So you'll give up Google Search in Safari on the iPHone?
You'll give up YouTube on the iPHone?
And probably the most used App on any phone ever. You'll give up Google Maps and directions on the iPHone.

Nope. Because I'm not whining about Google's monopoly and dumping. I don't mind it given it impacts mostly MS and Apple. Two other large companies with their own monopolies and can take care of themselves. Nor do I much care when it impacts media companies and phone companies because my user experiences with them have been substandard anyway.

I just don't see how Apple not allowing GV as a big deal. They are competitors. Mostly friendly but still competitors. Of the three companies, I prefer Apple to win any conflicts. Sue me.

Quote:
Google has already "dumped" all of the Free Apps as you call them on the iPhone and iPhone users love them.

Sure. Google and even MS are mostly benign monopolies toward users. MS Office was great for users but it put companies like Wang out of business. Instead of $5000 word processing machines you could get a $200 office package. Massive win for the users. Not so massive win for MS competitors.

Even the browser thing. Had it not been for MS we'd likely be paying $40 for browsers. Netscape had to monetize their browser base and selling servers wasn't really cutting it. Had there been no IE they'd have been forced to start charging...and they have every intention of doing so. They were already charging site licenses for their browser and had planned to charge everyone but academic and non-profit users.

What most folks miss is that MS was a good thing for the computing world. I expect Google to work pretty much the same way (and be a little less evil in the process). And I hope that Apple can make the phone and media companies a little more responsive to their users and if they have to bludgeon them with their iPod stick I don't mind.

Quote:
If you're going to trash someone take a look at your own iPhone and see how much you already rely on Google and would be willing to give up if Google decided to pull them from your phone.

As I said earlier Google isn't a charity. It doesn't give away free apps unless it fits into their long term business strategy. YouTube costs massive amounts of money to maintain and Google has plans to generate a positive ROI from maintaining YouTube.

Same for Google Maps and especially Google Earth. MS is actually a lot more friendly with Virtual Earth.

That's hardly trashing Google.

Which apps would I give up? Well any of them really. Bing for search, Hotmail for mail, VE for maps, etc. Whether MS would actually write these for the iPhone is debatable but someone would fill the void. Now I USE Google search over Bing, Maps over VE and GMail over Hotmail but mostly because Google does a better job at integration than MS.

Which is a shame because I really like the Live guys. They've been pretty good to my project and me personally.

The question for both Apple and Google is whether it is still advantageous for certain apps to be on the iPhone. For GV Apple has said no and Google isn't likely to pull GMail, GMaps or search off for the sake of GV.
post #214 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

On your high horse in yet another posting.

Apple is already hosting all of the Great Free Apps that come on the iPhone.

Ahh...you're a troll an no further need to respond to you except maybe to taunt you a second time. Thanks!
post #215 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Ahh...you're a troll an no further need to respond to you except maybe to taunt you a second time. Thanks!

That line from an Apple Apologist has become so old that it's almost comical. Try a different approach to someone that disagrees with you, you dismissed me as a Troll in 2 postings to you. Who's the Troll at this point. An Apple Troll.
post #216 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Because companies change behavior most often when revenues take a hit.

Besides, being outraged without the moral conviction to actually change your own behavior to influence the company in question is equally if not more idiotic and certainly far less deserving of respect.

I am not outraged. I am discussing problems i see with the policies of a company of which I am huge fan. Apple has responded positively to issues that were publicized widely in the Mac/Apple community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Like it or not, Android and therefore Google is an Apple competitor. Your lame excuses that the GV app does not "replace" the base iphone app doesn't wash given that the entire intent is to move the user from other ecosystems (including the iPhone) into the Google Voice ecosystem where Google can attempt to monetize the eyeballs in some fashion. Google isn't a charity so when they give something away, there's specific advantage for them. It's also often to the advantage of the user. It is not often to the advantage to their competitors. Of which Apple is one.

I gave no excuses. I explained the fault of some people readings of the response from Apple.

But, if all the GV app does to be rejected/delayed, is provide an alternative, then as you say, they were denied/rejected likely simply because they are google and a competitor with Apple. That would be akin to MS putting hooks into Windows to prevent iTunes from running. After all, they compete. Please don't counter with the response that, well Apple owns the ecosystem etc, as that is what gives them the ability. The reason and rationale you gave is that they compete, so as a reason, it would be a proper reason for MS to do the same to Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

In any case, GV functionality, like VVM, should be easy to replicate. Especially for AT&T. The problem for AT&T and other telephony companies is that this is either where they make money or use as a competitive advantage (here the iPhone and Apple applies). Google, who doesn't care about either, gives it away because it can afford to and it doesn't impact their own monopoly revenue stream.

Yup. So you always pay for your browse right? I mean, it is free. And MS was right to block third party browsers, right? After all, they were trying to give it away for free to get users to use it.

But yes, it is a revenue stream. It appears to be relatively easy to replicate, as many carriers now offer it. Often for free. They all pay a royalties to Klausner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Same for Apple in the iPod world...but I view Apple as far more vulnerable than either MS or Google because of its hardware based business model. But I also do understand why some folks are scared/mad at Apple for pissing in their revenue stream by minimizing the commercial value of content on iTunes. Apple uses it's monopoly power on MPs players to force content providers to negotiate on favorable terms for Apple. Good for Apple. Good for Apple customers. Not so good for media companies.

Actually very good for the content providers. They just want more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Folks really upset about that don't buy iPods or use iTunes. If you're that upset about GV and the app store, I suggest you do the same. If not, then you'll just have to accept it when folks call you on empty protestations.

I would suggest that if actually are a thinking person and like the product, this should not mean you think it is perfect and intentionally accept all possible faults. That is an idiots path. But then, I think that is why the same people always then only have the single response of "then buy a pre". They honestly cannot comprehend the concept of likely a product or company and have issues with it at the same time...but for most it seems they only think this way for companies they 'follow', much like any other cult members.

Again, before you call me an Apple hater, or basher or whatever other 'lame' name used these days, I, again, am a huge Apple fan...just not a 'follower'. The world doesn't need another cult.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Besides, Google could work with Apple to integrate GV into the basic phone app. It's not like GMail isn't a top tier provider for mail. Then the iPhone user base stays within the iPhone ecosystem when on the iPhone and within the GV one when on other platforms.

Sure. This would be great, since GV is a service...the app simply makes it convenient. I don't care whether the interface for the GV service comes from google or Apple or anyone else. If they did do this, then the Apple 'followers' would actually be allowed to like the GV service. Google was willing to let 3rd parties to their own apps, so they should be willing to let Apple do it. I don't think Apple would agree to it, for a number of reasons.

"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 #217 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

That line from an Apple Apologist has become so old that it's almost comical. Try a different approach to someone that disagrees with you, you dismissed me as a Troll in 2 postings to you. Who's the Troll at this point. An Apple Troll.

Easy, you ignored a detailed posting that addressed your position to throw out a one liner that added zero content to the discussion. I actually meant to call you something other than a troll but we're not really supposed to insult other users here.

Yep, I'm sure every apple apologists thinks Apple is a monopolist.
post #218 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Easy, you ignored a detailed posting that addressed your position to throw out a one liner that added zero content to the discussion. I actually meant to call you something other than a troll but we're not really supposed to insult other users here.

Yep, I'm sure every apple apologists thinks Apple is a monopolist.

During the past 3 days I've added plenty of information to this particular posting.

You chose to read one. I Call you an Apple Troll on your own forum.

Read the entire 207 postings as I have and reviewed the YouTube (Google Supplied) video of what it offered and I want it. Do know exactly what Google currently has on your phone and how much information you've already given them without thought.

You gave me an uneducated, sophomoric response to a very serious discussion.

Get on Board or Get off the Board.
post #219 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

I am not outraged. I am discussing problems i see with the policies of a company of which I am huge fan. Apple has responded positively to issues that were publicized widely in the Mac/Apple community.

Okay, you're not outraged and a huge fan.

Quote:
I gave no excuses. I explained the fault of some people readings of the response from Apple.

Uh, right. Because GV isn't trying to replace existing phone ecosystems with a Google managed one.

Quote:
But, if all the GV app does to be rejected/delayed, is provide an alternative, then as you say, they were denied/rejected likely simply because they are google and a competitor with Apple. That would be akin to MS putting hooks into Windows to prevent iTunes from running.

Nope. It would be like MS not allowing iTunes to be sold from MS stores if it was considered not good for MS...a perfectly reasonable position. Or Sony keeping the iTunes infrastructure from the PS3 if Sony didn't like it. Another perfectly reasonable position.

Quote:
After all, they compete. Please don't counter with the response that, well Apple owns the ecosystem etc, as that is what gives them the ability. The reason and rationale you gave is that they compete, so as a reason, it would be a proper reason for MS to do the same to Apple.

It does own the ecosystem. Try getting stuff to run on the PS3 that Sony doesn't want.

MS COULD do the same but the problem with that scenario is that it would be singling out a competitor on a general purpose computing system. As a monopolist it would have significant issues with that (*cough* browsers *cough*).

iTunes doesn't run on the 360. That's a much closer situation given that both platforms are closed and neither are in monopoly positions. Arguably Apple wouldn't port iTunes to the 360 but you have a pretty hard case to make that MS would really want to allow it either. Seamless 360 and iPod integration is just another nail in the Zune coffin.

The scenario you posit is FUD. The counter is to call it so. The iPhone OSX is not an open system like Android, Linux or Mac OSX but a closed ecosystem.

Quote:
Yup. So you always pay for your browse right? I mean, it is free. And MS was right to block third party browsers, right? After all, they were trying to give it away for free to get users to use it.

Block? They never blocked third party browsers. They didn't INCLUDE third party browsers and I never had an issue with that. Frankly what killed netscape wasn't bundling IE but the fact that just when IE stopped sucking Netscape was about to charge for their browsers for normal users.

Had it not been for IE, we could have entered a period where it was normal to charge for browsers.

Quote:
Actually very good for the content providers. They just want more.

Yah, okay, if you say so. Those companies disagree that having Apple in the driver position is good for them. Could be because it isn't. That they want more is a natural aspect of capitalism.

That you won't even agree that Apple minimizes the value of content to make the iTunes ecosystem more attractive to users is interesting. Everything is $0.99 was really great for content producers. Because good and new content is of identical value to old or bad content.

Quote:
I would suggest that if actually are a thinking person and like the product, this should not mean you think it is perfect and intentionally accept all possible faults. That is an idiots path. But then, I think that is why the same people always then only have the single response of "then buy a pre". They honestly cannot comprehend the concept of likely a product or company and have issues with it at the same time...but for most it seems they only think this way for companies they 'follow', much like any other cult members.

I would suggest that all of your "thinking" has zero impact on the behavior of Apple.

Quote:
Again, before you call me an Apple hater, or basher or whatever other 'lame' name used these days, I, again, am a huge Apple fan...just not a 'follower'. The world doesn't need another cult.

Apple's "cult" is equally a dodge as calling someone a hater or whatever. Frankly, there are probably more haters than cultists anyway based on human nature on the net.

The point is that whining on an apple fan site does zero good. Hence the common response "well, don't buy one then". It's a very simple solution to the problem with App store policy. The whole thing is blown completely out of proportion and is now simply FUD against Apple.

As a "huge Apple fan" with deep thoughts on the subject you might consider that.

Thus far in this discussion you've dismissed anything that disagrees with your position and pretty much implied that those that disagree are mindless followers. Maybe folks are simply tired of even more anti-Apple FUD about the app store?

Gee, 95% acceptance rate and Apple is somehow being overly selective on the App Store.

Quote:
Sure. This would be great, since GV is a service...the app simply makes it convenient. I don't care whether the interface for the GV service comes from google or Apple or anyone else. If they did do this, then the Apple 'followers' would actually be allowed to like the GV service. Google was willing to let 3rd parties to their own apps, so they should be willing to let Apple do it. I don't think Apple would agree to it, for a number of reasons.

You don't think Apple would agree but you think Google would allow it? Heh, yah, there's no bias there...especially not against those mindless sheeple that are Apple followers (rather than fans of course).

In any case, are you a GV user? Or are you "not-outraged" over something that doesn't even impact you about the app store? Like those non-iPhone dev's "not-outraged" over app store policies.

Funny, I like GV. I just don't really care there's no app.
post #220 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

During the past 3 days I've added plenty of information to this particular posting.

Interesting that your content is completely limited to this one thread.

Quote:
You chose to read one. I Call you an Apple Troll on your own forum.

I choose to respond to one directed at me. I didn't find the others particularly noteworthy of comment.

Quote:
Read the entire 207 postings as I have and reviewed the YouTube (Google Supplied) video of what it offered and I want it. Do know exactly what Google currently has on your phone and how much information you've already given them without thought.

Given that I'm currently developing on the Google platform (specifically wave) I'd say that I am somewhat more likely to know what's on my iPhone from google than average.

I also likely appreciate Google far more than you.

Quote:
You gave me an uneducated, sophomoric response to a very serious discussion.

Get on Board or Get off the Board.

I gave you a response suited for your particular argument given you responded twice to the same post. Even more amusing is that you really did think it was a second post and stated it as "another post".

Yep, trollish behavior and not very good trollish behavior at that. I would call it epic failure except it was hardly epic. Just a sad little failure.

And for a 20 post member on one single subject (10% of which was responding to the same post ) it's rather amusing for you to tell me to get lost.

Hey, how about another suitable response for you: Your mother is an hamster and your father smells of elderberries!

PS Apologies for the excessive smilies but you have been highly amusing tonight. Even more funny is that you're trying to piss me off. Imagine a smiley here since I've used up my quota for the night.
post #221 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

iTunes doesn't run on the 360. That's a much closer situation given that both platforms are closed and neither are in monopoly positions. Arguably Apple wouldn't port iTunes to the 360 but you have a pretty hard case to make that MS would really want to allow it either. Seamless 360 and iPod integration is just another nail in the Zune coffin.

.

Microsoft has "partnered" with Netflix and is working on an number of other partnerships to enhance the Zune/XBox Solution for an entire in-house/on the road experience.
So once again, your argument (not posting) has gone down the drain.

You can now download Netflix (downloadable) Movies to your XBox 360. I would expect Netflix to expand their downloadable Movies (which are now free) to be under their subscription rate (which if you are an avid movie watcher, is 90% less than Apple currently charges.

I see Apple changing their ways and partnering with Movie vendors to compete. At this point they almost have to or the FCC will continue to haunt them.
post #222 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

...

Sorry I'm old and I don't see smiley faces as any input to a serious response. In my eyes it just makes it look like grade school. But I will give you a STAR on your report card to show your parents.
post #223 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

Sorry I'm old and I don't see smiley faces as any input to a serious response. In my eyes it just makes it look like grade school. But I will give you a STAR on your report card to show your parents.

Yep, you just want to "not see" that you responded twice to the same post with name calling and zero content.

Oooh...nice try with the age thing. Well, not really. But I think we're almost up to 20% of your total content devoted to me. Nice to have a fan.

Hey, I found a reserve pile of smilies, here you go. I guess technically they are LOLs rather than smileys.
post #224 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Why would those 'free-loaders' she invited for dinner give over a large portion of their disposable income? As I wrote, "Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner".

And how about if mum was driving a red convertible, wearing flouro roller blade? The analogy is dead. Just let it go.

Go back and read everything Tulkas has written. It sounds entirely reasonable to me.

If we go back and assess Apple's submission criticially instead of simply accepting it as the truth because it is a response to a government request, it's pretty clear that while not being untruthful, it is clearly leading the suggestion that the application puts away the core telephony function of the iPhone. If someone can explain to me how that is possible, I'm all ears.

Some of the responses are absolutely breathtaking for a vendor of Apple's calibre. They didn't know whether the application did VOIP? A four word email would have solved that question and yet without a hint of irony they are suggesting they are not sure? Sounds like they want to lean on their contractual provisions with AT&T as some sort of defensive manoeuvre.

Take the following two statements:

"I didn't win", and
"I came last"

Both could be truthful but one is certainly more accurate than other. Looks to me if you take apart the response that Apple is being truthful, more than accurate. Of course they have an army of lawyers to provide truthful answers, but that's it. Doesn't mean it's accurate.
post #225 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

AT&T also issued a statement Friday denying any involvement in the state of apparent limbo the Google Voice iPhone software currently finds itself in. AT&T and Apple both stated that AT&T was never contacted by Apple for consultation on the Google Voice application, but that the decision was made solely by the iPhone maker. In the AT&T statement, Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president, external and legislative affairs, encouraged Google Voice users to access the application from the Web.

"Let me state unequivocally, AT&T had no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store," Cicconi said. "AT&T was not asked about the matter by Apple at any time, nor did we offer any view one way or the other."

Oh, that AT&T's statement is definitely not fair. Will they admit no role in having become #1 on the market because of iPhone sales?

Apple Market Cap Surpasses Googles Value Buy them, Apple, and make baby smile. Now you can.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #226 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This has really degenerated, guys. You both have some good things to say, so why don't you stick to the topic than the name-calling.

Especially, the more seasoned poster....... (pardon the grin)

Eh...sometimes it's amusing to feed the trolls. But I'll stop here and just ignore his little games.
post #227 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

If we go back and assess Apple's submission criticially instead of simply accepting it as the truth because it is a response to a government request, it's pretty clear that while not being untruthful, it is clearly leading the suggestion that the application puts away the core telephony function of the iPhone. If someone can explain to me how that is possible, I'm all ears.

Lemme see, when you replace the voice mail, contacts, dialing, SMS capabilities with your own I'd say that you are attempting to replace the core telephony function of the iPhone with your own offering. You're reducing the iPhone to nothing more than a host to the google app from the perspective of phone functionality.

Nice if you can get away with it. But there's no reason for Apple to play your game.

From Google's perspective, reducing OSX to nothing more than commodity linux is fine. Just as it is fine for Apple to reduce ATT to nothing more than a pipe. The difference is ATT wants/needs the iPhone. Apple doesn't want/need GV.

Quote:
Some of the responses are absolutely breathtaking for a vendor of Apple's calibre. They didn't know whether the application did VOIP? A four word email would have solved that question and yet without a hint of irony they are suggesting they are not sure? Sounds like they want to lean on their contractual provisions with AT&T as some sort of defensive manoeuvre.

It is VERY unlikely that GV works without VOIP. You could implement it without VOIP but it would be silly. Still, there's no reason that google would answer your hypothetical 4 word email with a 4 word email of its own: "That information is proprietary".

ATT doesn't come into play because the VOIP functionality is likely all on the server side...most probably anyway. If I HAD to answer an official inquiry I would hedge that statement a little just to be safe and let Google answer that question.

Quote:
Take the following two statements:

"I didn't win", and
"I came last"

Both could be truthful but one is certainly more accurate than other. Looks to me if you take apart the response that Apple is being truthful, more than accurate. Of course they have an army of lawyers to provide truthful answers, but that's it. Doesn't mean it's accurate.

Gee, Apple spins things to their own interests. Surprising. So does Google. Google's response, the non-redacted parts anyway, also spins things to make Google look better. Interesting that Google is hiding something from the public isn't it?
post #228 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.

Asked and Answered:

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&Ts 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.

Once a call from an iPhone, or any other phone for that matter, is routed through an external server(s), just how could one determine if any part of the call is being transmitted via VoIP technology over a 3G network, if you are not apprised of the protocol employed in the process?
post #229 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The response ('if you don't like Apple/AT&T, then buy a different phone') was right on the money.

Apple offers a product. You get to choose to buy it or not to buy it. That is the extent of your freedom and that's how a free market works. You do NOT have the authority to dictate how Apple should sell or support the product.

No, but one has the right to discuss limitations, problems and issues that one observes with a company. No matter who that company might be.

Others, the not so bright and the cult-like followers, simply say "oh, well, if they tell it is right, then it must be so."

Who claimed any authority to dictate change? Oh I see, yet another fabrication from you. You are full of them in this thread. You posts are fairly worthless in that sense.

If you don't like reading posts you don't agree with here, why don't you stop reading? See, that is an idiotic statement...likely one you might actually agree with.

"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 #230 of 280
nm

post #231 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Asked and Answered:

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&Ts 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.

Once a call from an iPhone, or any other phone for that matter, is routed through an external server(s), just how could one determine if any part of the call is being transmitted via VoIP technology over a 3G network, if you are not apprised of the protocol employed in the process?

GV calls you first and then connects you when you make an outbound call (to get caller id to show your GV number). I figure that's all the app does (via IP) although it would be a more seamless experience by using VOIP on the iPhone side to skip the ring back part. It's a big help just to skip the call GV first then enter the number you REALLY want to call next.

Possible that the GV app uses VOIP but highly unlikely given Google knows that ATT doesn't want VOIP over their 3G service. If you aren't going to carry the conversation using VOIP over 3G there's little to no need to use it for any other function on the phone itself.
post #232 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

No, but one has the right to discuss limitations, problems and issues that one observes with a company. No matter who that company might be.

Others, the not so bright and the cult-like followers, simply say "oh, well, if they tell it is right, then it must be so."

Because maybe we've looked into and think it is right and there's no real problem? Nah...easier to just call em fanbois and "not so bright".

Quote:
If you don't like reading posts you don't agree with here, why don't you stop reading? See, that is an idiotic statement...likely one you might actually agree with.

It's called the ignore feature and it's used by quite a few folks. Gee amazing how that works isn't it?
post #233 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

GV calls you first and then connects you when you make an outbound call (to get caller id to show your GV number). I figure that's all the app does (via IP) although it would be a more seamless experience by using VOIP on the iPhone side to skip the ring back part. It's a big help just to skip the call GV first then enter the number you REALLY want to call next.

Possible that the GV app uses VOIP but highly unlikely given Google knows that ATT doesn't want VOIP over their 3G service. If you aren't going to carry the conversation using VOIP over 3G there's little to no need to use it for any other function on the phone itself.

So, the point remains as Apple stated, i.e., "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."
post #234 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

So, the point remains as Apple stated, i.e., "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."

Sure, and I'd make that same statement if I had to render an official opinion to a government body and refer that question to Google. Never say more than you have to and never speculate on something you don't know.

But if I had to play expert, I'd say it was unlikely given what I know. Odds are Apple never even bothered to check since it's so unlikely. It's not hard to put a packet sniffer on and look for VOIP packets but there's also no reason that they should have been asked the question when Google could have been asked directly. Funny that they didn't in their list of Google questions.

My answer to you was simply for informational purposes...not what Apple should have answered.
post #235 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Okay, you're not outraged and a huge fan.

That's right.r

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Uh, right. Because GV isn't trying to replace existing phone ecosystems with a Google managed one.

In the sense of offering an alternative or replacement? Yup. you got it. In the sense of removing Apple's features, no. Apple's own example make that clear to anyone able to read. As far as it being a complete replacement/alternative ecosystem...yes, they appear to want to provide that. Many other apps replace the individual features that GV would..So the problem is simply that GV would do it all and do it better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Nope. It would be like MS not allowing iTunes to be sold from MS stores if it was considered not good for MS...a perfectly reasonable position. Or Sony keeping the iTunes infrastructure from the PS3 if Sony didn't like it. Another perfectly reasonable position.

You analogy only makes sense if MS Stores were the only way to load software on a PC. Since not allowing something into the app store prevents it from being legitimately installed on the iPhone, only an analogy of preventing software from being installed on a PC is a comparable analogy.

If Sony barred it from their system only because it was from Apple, I would disagree with that move as well. It would be wrong to do that. They have the right to do it, but that doesn't make it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

It does own the ecosystem. Try getting stuff to run on the PS3 that Sony doesn't want.

So, the reason it is right is because they can? This is why I suggested that you not use their ownership of the ecosystem as the rationale. Your original explanation that Apple should not allow GV was because Google is a competitor. The mechanism of how they are able to do it (their close system) does not provide justification.

So again, by your reasoning, Apple was right to do it, 1) because Google is a competitor and 2) because the can.

Apple competes with MS and MS could easily prevent them or make it difficult to run iTunes, You are right. Perhaps they should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

MS COULD do the same but the problem with that scenario is that it would be singling out a competitor on a general purpose computing system. As a monopolist it would have significant issues with that (*cough* browsers *cough*).

Their actions were wrong. Their monopolist position made it illegal. But wrong is still wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

iTunes doesn't run on the 360. That's a much closer situation given that both platforms are closed and neither are in monopoly positions. Arguably Apple wouldn't port iTunes to the 360 but you have a pretty hard case to make that MS would really want to allow it either. Seamless 360 and iPod integration is just another nail in the Zune coffin.

The scenario you posit is FUD. The counter is to call it so. The iPhone OSX is not an open system like Android, Linux or Mac OSX but a closed ecosystem.

So again, by your reasoning comes down to, Apple was right to do it, 1) because Google is a competitor and 2) because the can. Very flexible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Block? They never blocked third party browsers. They didn't INCLUDE third party browsers and I never had an issue with that. Frankly what killed netscape wasn't bundling IE but the fact that just when IE stopped sucking Netscape was about to charge for their browsers for normal users.

Had it not been for IE, we could have entered a period where it was normal to charge for browsers.

You are right, block was the wrong choice of words. But, they were held to be taking actions to harm Netscape. This actions were wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yah, okay, if you say so. Those companies disagree that having Apple in the driver position is good for them. Could be because it isn't. That they want more is a natural aspect of capitalism.

That you won't even agree that Apple minimizes the value of content to make the iTunes ecosystem more attractive to users is interesting. Everything is $0.99 was really great for content producers. Because good and new content is of identical value to old or bad content.

Are people buying content on iTunes? Yes, they are. Were music sales on CD dropping quickly? yes they were. Did Apple model help drive sales for content providers? yes it did. So, overall was it good for the content providers? yes, it was.

Could the content providers simply want more, both money and control? No, not those guys.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I would suggest that all of your "thinking" has zero impact on the behavior of Apple.

Oh good one. I would suggest that you saying "buy another phone" every time someone has a complaint about Apple is stupid. There, we both have are opinions. But, Apple has shown they are often willing to pay attention when customers/developer/partners start bitching.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Apple's "cult" is equally a dodge as calling someone a hater or whatever. Frankly, there are probably more haters than cultists anyway based on human nature on the net.

When someone (not you) explains to me that they take issue with critics of Apple, not because they are a fan or a customer, but because they are a 'follower' that starts to sound rather cultish to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

The point is that whining on an apple fan site does zero good. Hence the common response "well, don't buy one then". It's a very simple solution to the problem with App store policy. The whole thing is blown completely out of proportion and is now simply FUD against Apple.

So you expect discussing things on a forum to enact change? I expect to engage in dialog. But, those that are not capable of intelligent dialog resort immediately to canned responses "buy a pre", "you hate apple"...very similar to the "You hate America" or "If you don't like it, get out of America" bullshit that some rednecks resort to in their 'discussions'

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

As a "huge Apple fan" with deep thoughts on the subject you might consider that.

Absolutely. I have been called a Mac zealot and had people dismiss arguments I have in favour of Apple or the Mac or iPhone by saying I am too biased for apple. But, if that is their first response, their first counter to my arguments, then it is a pretty stupid response. I see it from both sides.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Thus far in this discussion you've dismissed anything that disagrees with your position and pretty much implied that those that disagree are mindless followers. Maybe folks are simply tired of even more anti-Apple FUD about the app store?

I have dismissed only what was presented incorrectly. If anyone presents facts or analysis that I makes sense, whether it agrees with my position or not, i will acknowledge it or not comment on it, but certainly not dismiss it.

maybe some are tired. But for their initial answers to be non-scensical name calling is weak. If they out right lie, that is weak. If they unintentionally fabricate something but then refuse to see it when explained, that is pathetic.

if they disagree with me, that is fine. Lots of intelligent people here and all will have their own opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post


You don't think Apple would agree but you think Google would allow it? Heh, yah, there's no bias there...especially not against those mindless sheeple that are Apple followers (rather than fans of course).

No bias at all. Google allowed GV Mobile and others to create front end interfaces for their GV services on the iphone. That is a fact. Not a bias.

If Apple did the front end, as you suggested, they would control the interface. If that is the only reason for not being approved, then sure, they might go for it. But, since it is a free service and there would be no additional revenue and Google would still control the service itself, why would Apple approve it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

In any case, are you a GV user? Or are you "not-outraged" over something that doesn't even impact you about the app store? Like those non-iPhone dev's "not-outraged" over app store policies.

I do have an activated account, but i don't use it yet as it is not usable in Canada. But, my perception of right and wrong goes beyond what affects me. Maybe some people only see wrong when it personally affects them. (TOTALLY UNRELATED AND BAD ANALOGY ALERT: maybe if more people saw things as wrong that did not have to affect them personally we wouldn't have thinks like Rwanda and the Sudan happen again)

I am an iPhone user and hoped to use GV on the iPhone when it is available here. Is your point that I should only be concerned once it affects me? That I should only think their actions are wrong once they affect me?

Does GV not being available ruin my life? No. Does it disappoint me that my favorite company implements policies and take actions that i disagree with? Yep. Am I outraged? No. Am I disappointed to the point of not buying Apple products? No. Am I disappointed to the point of discussing it on a forum? Yep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Funny, I like GV. I just don't really care there's no app.

At that is perfectly fine.

"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 #236 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

I don't think so. (psstdon't rely on my current handle. A couple of major moves, a loss of my former email address and a change of services)

Fantastic. I likely have still been here much longer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Why would those 'free-loaders' she invited for dinner give over a large portion of their disposable income? As I wrote, "Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner"

You are right, but that is because it was such a bad analogy to begin with. I am not a guest of Apple, I am a paying customer. As such, I am hardly a freeloader if and when I complain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Man you are so full of shit.

Better check out the definition. Apple is actively " [continuing] to study it", the issue (not the app) is being pondered on and not as you tried to imply, disregarded or forgotten.

The only state of limbo is your mind. IMO.

<sigh> why do I always have to explain simple, stupid things to some people.

OK, if you need a definition to understand the metaphore:
Quote:
a place or state of restraint or confinement b : a place or state of neglect or oblivion <proposals kept in limbo> c : an intermediate or transitional place or state d : a state of uncertainty

Merriam Webster dictionary

Since it has been submitted, but is neither approved nor denied, it is in a state in between. It is on hold, not only while Apple examines the app and it merits or lack thereof, but while they weigh how to respond. It is an apt metaphore.

So, no, not full of shit, just using words you don't understand. I will try to use smaller words for you.

Edit: removed comments that were to personal on review.

"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 #237 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

GV calls you first and then connects you when you make an outbound call (to get caller id to show your GV number). I figure that's all the app does (via IP) although it would be a more seamless experience by using VOIP on the iPhone side to skip the ring back part. It's a big help just to skip the call GV first then enter the number you REALLY want to call next.

Possible that the GV app uses VOIP but highly unlikely given Google knows that ATT doesn't want VOIP over their 3G service. If you aren't going to carry the conversation using VOIP over 3G there's little to no need to use it for any other function on the phone itself.

Very good description.

There has been talk of the mobile apps from Google for GV implementing VOIP. But if the App on the iPhone initiated calls over VOIP, Apple would know immediately during their review process.

"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 #238 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Because maybe we've looked into and think it is right and there's no real problem? Nah...easier to just call em fanbois and "not so bright".

That there is no problem is your opinion and is it is as right as the person that thinks their actions are wrong.

Name calling or resorting to "well then buy something else" comments would not be bright. And I am writing as a fanboie and quite proud of it. The way some 'follower' react to any criticism is embarrassing for some fans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

It's called the ignore feature and it's used by quite a few folks. Gee amazing how that works isn't it?

It is called a forum because people come here to discuss. Gee, amazing how that works, isn't it?

"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 #239 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Fantastic. I likely have still been here much longer.

<sigh> why do I always have to explain simple, stupid things to some people.

OK, if you need a definition to understand the metaphore:

Since it has been submitted, but is neither approved nor denied, it is in a state in between. It is on hold, not only while Apple examines the app and it merits or lack thereof, but while they weigh how to respond. It is an apt metaphore.

So, no, not full of shit, just using words you don't understand. I will try to use smaller words for you.

Let's see. Ordered first Mac Jan 20, 1984. Now nearing my 100th. On web basically day one. Subscribed to MW, AI and a host of others virtually the day they became available.

As to state of limbo, are you suggesting the anything that is being reviewed or in review is such. Like a pre-op patients medical record while he is on the gurny outside the OR, your income tax submission, application for a bank loan, etc.
post #240 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


As to state of limbo, are you suggesting the anything that is being reviewed or in review is such. Like a pre-op patients medical record while he is on the gurny outside the OR, your income tax submission, application for a bank loan, etc.

If you are on a gurney and have no idea if you will have the surgery or not, then yeah. Or if you were waiting for approval for a bank loan and the bank simply tells you to continue to wait while they continue to review, then yeah.

Is it really that difficult a metaphor for 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
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