Apple responds to FCC inquiry over Google Voice dilemma - Page 7

Agreed in part. My lab guy suggest that a packet sniffer wouldn't really work once the message is out the door. Accessing Googles servers and surely the security protocols would prevent it.

As one did comment, if it were possible, tracking internet pedophiles or sales scams for example, would be a no-brainer.

However, somebody else has a difference of opinion re how the GV works.

"Google Voice is a free Internet service that uses VoIP technology to link phone numbers together. http://www.crunchbase.com/product/google-voice

Then you are in a state of limbo, Not the surgery, or app that is in review, and as you said.

You lab guy is right. There is no way for Apple to know how Google is actually routing the calls from their servers. But they absolutely would be able to tell if the call from the iPhone itself is being made over VoIP or over their voice line. They could use a packet sniffer, of they could examine the process of a call being initiated on the iPhone to know what libraries were being used, what API calls are being invoked, etc. They required Skype to change their code to work over Wifi only and not 3G. How would they enforce this if there was no way to tell?

Even if they could not tell, which they should be able to do technically, there has to be a way for them to know, even if it is just a matter of asking the developer. I suppose if they were unable to tell, then it would be on the honour system, but that seems unlikely.

Since they claim in their response not to know if it works over 3G, then either they have not gotten that far into their review process, they have not asked Google for this information or their statement refers to their knowledge/lack of, of how google routes the calls after it has reached their servers. I expect Apple was honest in their response, so any of these would make sense.

The google voice service works regardless of if you are on a land line or cell phone. The backend is described as VoIP, because the calls are connected through the google network via VoIP. But at the two end points, your phone and the person you are calling, it is a traditional call (unless one or both ends are voip). There is talk of GV developing a full VoIP app/service, but I have only heard of that for the android so far. You cannot yet, for example, make a call from your PC/Mac and talk on the PC/Mac. You can initiate it on your PC/Mac and have it ring both your phone and the person you are calling, but those phones can be landlines or cellphones or voip lines.

Does not matter, if he states it a fact, it is an opinion, because he never provided a accessible quote to vertify the statement.

????
The approval of the surgery is uncertain. It is in a state of limbo. The state of the app is neither approved nor rejected. It is uncertain which it will be. It is in a state of limbo.

Do you really want to continue debating now, whether the metaphor makes more sense to apply to the app itself or the approval of the app? Hardly seems relevant.

because there was no statement on the response to quote. He made it up. He said "Google refused to publish the details of their response. Including why their app was built export all of a user's contacts and transfer them to Teh Google's servers without notifying the user this was happening."

There is no statement, from Apple, Google or the FCC that even remotely implies this is the case. He claims google should have published that their app sends user contacts without their knowledge. This is a made up statement. He lied.

I could as easily say that Apple sends a portion of their revenue to the Klan and that Apple should explain why they do this. But, that would be making an unfounded accusation. It would be a lie.

Do I know if the GV app does sends my contacts to the google servers without my knowledge? No. Do I know if Apple does fund the Klan? No. Do I have any reason to believe either is the case? No. Should I expect Apple to cop to funding the Klan? Not if there is no reason to assume they are doing so.

Soooo, how's that Google borg implant working out for you?

Still waiting for the screenshot that shows they asked permission to upload your contacts to their servers. Also, the link to the privacy policy that says what they'll do with it once its there.

??

John.B. You posts are really not worth reading anymore. You repeatedly lie to make your points, which at best are weak to begin with.

How is my google borg implant working? I guess I must be a google drone because I agree with them in this case? When I agree with Apple, does that make me a Apple drone?

Once your posts have more than lies or silly comments like google borg implants, perhaps we can engage in a conversation. Until, then, I will simply continue to point out your fabrications and limitations.

I'm thinking you work for Google, which was my point.

Still waiting for that screenshot and privacy policy link.

I see you made an addition.

See, you made an accusation that they were doing it without user consent. That is just an empty fabrication, i.e. a lie. You made the claim, so you back it up.

Oh you can't.

Nope, their offices are about 1 minute from mine, but I don't work for them. I have a lot of praise for Apple and don't work for them either.

Still waiting for you to post any relevant information to substantiate your claim. But, you know well, that your lies cannot be substantiated.

MS Office did not put Wang out of business, not even out of the word processing business by itself. MS Office was not competing against Wang, it was competing against Lotus, WordPerfect, Quattro, etc., all of which were priced competitively. Admittedly, some of these players were late to the Windows game (although, this is at least partly because MS made it difficult for them to not be late) but it is also the case that MS included undocumented APIs in Windows exclusively for the use of Office products. There was no level playing field. MS leveraged its control of the OS into control of the office productivity software market.

Was this a massive win for users? I don't think so. It's resulted in the complete elimination of competition in this software category (sorry, but, OpenOffice is not offering real competition at this time), and users are paying for it in price, usability, and bloated inefficient software.


Well, regardless of what Netscape's plans at the time were for charging for their browser, your statement that, "Had it not been for MS we'd likely be paying $40 for browsers," is not provable or disprovable. Your argument is logically equivalent to saying, "If Columbus had not discovered America, Europeans would never have migrated here." (Substitute your favorite "discoverer" of America in the preceding and the point is the same.)

In fact, I think it's quite probable that even had MS never developed a browser, Netscape would not have succeeded in charging for theirs. It's more likely that numerous third parties would have released free browsers competing with Netscape and that that would have scuttled their plans of generating revenue by selling the browser. MS's entry into the browser market, and their way of tying it to Windows, largely eliminated those possibilities from viability. (Edit: There were numerous third party browsers available at the time, most of which are forgotten relics of Internet history now.)


A contentious claim, to say the least. Many would argue that, by controlling markets and eliminating competitors, MS has done great damage both to the advancement of technology and to users. However, I think you are correct in your expectation of Google working pretty much the same way... well, except perhaps the part about being, "less evil in the process."


It's possible that I'm misremembering this, but, as I recall, although they did not prevent end users from installing other browsers, they did "block" OEMs from including other browsers, or at least from including an icon for another browser on the default Desktop. So, if my memory is correct, they did block third party browsers in the sense of making it more difficult for the average, and especially the business user (who may not have any choice in software) to obtain and use alternative browsers.

But you're not a spammer are you?

I think so. Nuked.

Blimey! That was quick.

Now can you nuke ALL the other spam and make the registering process harder?
I'll check back in 10 mins to see if it's done.

We're looking into it, it seems there is a new back end system administrator.

I usually notice spammers when they post to an existing thread, the new post email notification also shows me if they're trying to hide URLs. If I come across a spammer during an idle moment, I'll nuke it. I don't have the time or patience to specifically hunt down spammers more than once a day, so I might not notice someone that posts at 6am until 6pm.

I don't buy it. You have waaaaaaaaay too much emotionally invested in this thread to be some innocent bystander "protecting Google's honor".

Since you have personal knowledge (i.e. you must've run the app to be able to dispute everyone else's assertations, claims, etc.) then maybe you can share the screenshots that prove you are in the right?

Tulkas, as I've said before; you have way too much emotional investment in this thread to be an average joe. There is something more to your involvement with GV or Google or Apple than meets the eye.

I do think you crossed the line on your above post. Consider it reported. Enjoy your AI infraction.

An unfounded assertion is not the same as a lie. It's only a lie when the person making the unfounded assertion is aware that the assertion is false. In the case where the assertion is false, but they are not aware that it is false, they are simply mistaken. It can also be the case that an unfounded assertion is true, despite the lack of evidence to support it, so, being unfounded does not make it false. And, of course, if it were unfounded but true, it could not, by definition, be a lie.

So, there are always a number of possibilities regarding any assertion that anyone makes, be it founded or unfounded, true or false, and only one of those is an instance of a lie. So, perhaps it would be better to not start calling each other liers unless you are entirely certain that a) the statements made by another are false and b) that they know they are false.

(OK, well, I'm over simplifying a bit, there's also the situation were a statement is true, but the person making it believes it to be false. I leave it as an exercise for the readers to determine if this specific case is a lie or not.)

That's true, but you didn't need to use a pedophile example. Not conducive for a civil discussion like laying land mines isn't conducive to traffic. Not that you would ever acknowledge that, at least I doubt you would.

So, let's see. Google Voice replaces Apple's phone services so Apple won't allow it.

On the Mac OS, Firefox may replace Safari; but, that's not a game killer.

Microsoft got in trouble for refusing to allow PCs to ship with a rival browser, Netscape. Now, Apple is refusing to allow a rival phone system on the iPhone. (Isn't even really a phone system.

I have to decide against Apple on this one.

I still call it a land mine. You didn't need to name a specific person, and you should know how it can be easily misconstrued.

Two wrongs don't make it right.

I suppose.


Now we can continue to wait for him to back up his accusation. Guess we will be waiting a while.

I've never liked Word on either the PC or Mac. And I'd use iWork on the Mac if Apple gave me the simple option to save in .doc or .docx - which I need to work on the files on PC's and share them with the 99% of the non-iWork using world - as the default save instead of having to do a dance involving going to the Finder to delete duplicate files.

(Just what the world needed - more proprietary formats for word processing and spreadsheet files)

But my Word processor of choice is still WordPerfect because of the total control provided by its reveal codes function (and it will save in .doc/x) - and the only reason my next Mac will be outfitted with Windows and virtualization software.

It's good to see I'm not the only one who remembers MS's tactics during the DOS/Windows switch when it promised ISV's a) continuing DOS development and b) promised the world it had set up a "firewall" between its OS and Applications groups so that all ISV's would have the same access to API's at the same time MS Office programmers got it.

So here's a history lesson for y'all:

The PC trade press (at that time primarily InfoWorld and PC Week) openly scoffed at the assertion. Meanwhile WordPerfect, #1 in word processing at the time, took MS at its word and invested huge resources in grafting its own mostly graphical UI to develop the interesting but doomed WP 6.0 for DOS - which left relatively few resources available for building a true Windows version.

By the time the trusting folks in Utah who bought into MS's gospel of "co-opetition" grasped they'd been snoggered and turned all their efforts to Win development (which was their bad in retrospect), MS Word for Win was by default grabbing huge gains in market share, and WP for Win was nowhere to be seen month after month after year - and WP was complaining loudly that MS kept shifting the Win API's every time their beta was stable.

And the line from one of those two publications I'll never forget (I think it was PC Week) was that the motto in the Windows API group was "the coding's not done until WordPerfect won't run." While oddly, the "firewalled off" Word coding group had no trouble keeping up with the changes.

When WP for Win was finally released, they launched a massive ad campaign showing fleets of semi trucks delivering the product to the pent-up masses, but it still had issues for some time and the damage had been done.

And when Novell's Ray Noorda - also in UT's "Salt Valley" - and also being "co-opteted" into irrelevance launched an ego-driven, ill-conceived and way too late effort to compete from the Server thru OS thru the Office level by picking up the corpses of DR-DOS, WordPerfect (and the product which became GroupWise), Borland's Quattro Pro and the Paradox database - all with separate code bases, and dBase faltered, the PC OS and Office and Server and Messaging landscape we see today took shape.

Corel, battered by Adobe, picked up WordPerfect Office where it survives as a small share company, while Novell's remaining chips are in the Linux market. Sun, while Java and Javascript survive, was never really a PC player, and is now becoming a division of Oracle, which was always primarily an enterprise-focused company. Netscape's assets ended up languishing inside of AOL, but also spawned (unless I'm mistaken) the true succcess story of OpenSource, Mozilla and FireFox.

The main PC software survivor of that time, outside of smallish Quicken (which I believe was only saved by the Justice Dept keeping MS from gobbling it up), chastened and restructured IBM, no longer in the "IBM PC" biz, nor several others it used to compete in, vibrantly resurgent Apple and MS itself - turned out to be iconoclastic Adobe, which fought off MS's attempts to horn in on image editing, and somehow turned PDF and Flash into (flawed) standards.

Leaving the present and future stage filled with the cloud and iDevice players. Where MS is less dominant, a more conservative competitor after its collisions with the US gov't and the EU, but not out of it. And you all know the others up to now - with Apple, Google and MS the media focus.

But paradigm shifts occur constantly in the tech world, and each opens new opportunities for disruptive tech to emerge. So it'll always be a riveting story. Even if I still miss WP being the standard for my main axe.

And again, tell me how its possible to do this. AFAIK you can't do it. That is 'replace'. To put one thing in place of another. It can't be done.


Not on point.


Depends on how you characterise the use of VOIP. It might use VOIP in the cloud but there's nothing to suggest it does to device. In fact, you can use the service to a POTS. What does that say about the use of VOIP?


And you've hit the nail on the head.


Again, not surprising, no. The point is I am asking you to read between the lines. You've already acknowledged spin, but think carefully about what they're not saying and also how they've couched what they did say.

Are we still arguing about the meaning of the word 'replace'? The word has enough latitude in meaning that Apple's use of it is almost certainly correct while the precise meaning intended may remain uncertain to us. If anyone's argument hinges on the precise meaning of 'replace' intended, it's probably not a very strong argument to begin with.

You can test to see if the iPhone app uses VOIP protocols using a sniffer.

GV works on Google's side via VOIP. That's a given. But the app on the iPhone doesn't have to because GV is built to accomodate any kind of phone via ringbacks.

AT&T can't object to folks using VOIP to call iPhones...and they don't care anyways. It still costs minutes.

Right. Tell me that my GV number doesn't replace my iPhone number. If it didn't then the entire point of using GV is lost (call one number, I get it everywhere).

If I replace my iPhone number (no one ever calls) with another then pray tell how I have not replaced ALL of the iPhone telephony functionality with GV? It's effectively a 3G iPod Touch that runs the GV app for telephony functions.


Entirely on point as to how GV harms Apple.


Google uses VOIP to get calls and route them to all of your phones. It does NOT need to use them on the iPhone app. I've said so in this thread.

Someone calls your GV number...which is a VOIP number that connects to some Google server, which initiates call forwarding to all of your other numbers.

When you call GV, it uses VOIP to ringback and bridge the call between you and who you wanted to call.


It isn't in any hidden message and the come out and say it. Apple doesn't want Google taking the iPhone telephony experience away from the iPhone.

Why is that so hard to believe? Because folks don't want to accept that the GV number is intended to replace all of your other numbers? Because there must be some hidden agenda on Apple's part because you don't get that if your iPhone number gets replaced THEN ALL THE NATIVE IPHONE PHONE FUNCTIONS ALSO GET REPLACED? Even if they physically remain on the device?

That's real stupid.

Geez, this won't be hard for Google given that GTalk voice uses Jingle uses RTP to transmit voice. Heck you can connect GTalk to Asterisk if you want and it's not like Google doesn't have the entire GV infrastructure to use for gateways.

The reason that Verizon doesn't want Apple is because Apple would reduce Verizon to providing bandwidth rather than value added services. It reduces Verizon to being a pipe. So Verizon said no.

The reason that Apple doesn't want GV is because GV would reduce the iPhone to being a 3G enabled device that runs the GV app. It significantly diminishes the iPhone's competitive advantage against other smart phone competitors. So Apple said no.


So, what you're saying is that Apple MUST support a competitor in destroying the value in its products and the economic harm does not provide justification for saying "You own Android, do it there and not on our platform".

This isn't much different that Palm hijacking iTunes.


Only if you ignore that GV is attempting to subvert the iPhone experience and commoditizing the platform.


Because they would then still control the user experience of the phone. GV would be part of the back end solution.

Does Apple want to replicate all that GV functionality in MobileMe? Not likely. So at that point it doesn't matter. What the don't want is the same telephony experience on the iPhone, Palm Pre, Blackberry, WinMo and Android phones.

They want to continue to have a competitive advantage in user experience because they are good at that and the other companies suck. Reducing everyone to the GV common demoninator means mediocrity across the board and the base GV functionality (call one number, ring everywhere) is too compelling to ignore.

So for the short term the smart response is to stick into app store limbo and figure out what the right course of action is.

That wasn't the question being asked. Tell me how Google view replaces built in telephony. You can't, because it doesn't, and it can't.


Well, for a start, you haven't replaced your iPhone number, have you? It's still there and it still can be used. Just because you may have chosen to put it to one side does not mean it has been replaced. If you gave out that number, would you be shocked if your phone rang? I guess you would be if you had 'replaced' it.






Don't you think that's a choice people should be able to make? It is completely asinine to suggest that a user of GV would expect to leverage all the functionality of the mobile device. Even so, they can if they wish, simply by using the iPhones built in telephony which can never be replaced.


So when the call is routed to your iPhone, does this GV app handle the call? It doesn't, because it can't. And when anyone calls your phone the GV app handles it how? It doesn't, because it can't. And when someone leaves a voice message on your iPhone number does that somehow magically never get to VVM? No, it doesn't.



No, what's real stupid is a response from apple like GV "prevent[s] voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apples Visual Voicemail" when the far more accurate description is that the user chooses to bypass it (again, a choice on the part of the user). In fact, that's not even inaccurate, that's a lie. The voicemail was never intended to be stored on the phone in the first place. A lie as in, the person making the assertion knows the assertion is false. In no way can VVM be considered disabled should one choose not to use it.

Anyways, I choose to end there. One won't convince the other so there's no point getting further worked up.

Have a good day.

You are probably quite right, that this is what Apple felt and as the reason for their decision/lack of, on the app. But, what you see as diminishing their competitive advantage, I see it as only offering an alternative. If the iPhone interfaces are all left intact, and they are an advantage, then the advantage still exists.

There is no one at Google with a gun to your head saying that if you use their GV service you must use it for all of your phones. You believe that not doing so eliminates the benefit of even using GV. You said you use GV or have an account. Have you eliminated all of your other phone numbers?



No I am saying that Google being a competitor for device space is not justification for denying the app (or more accurately, for not approving it). Just as it was wrong for MS to use their platform of their OSes to act against competitors in the application space (whether their monopoly made it illegal or not).


or perhaps trying to offer alternatives to users.


Yet that back end would still be google...for everything including features like VVM. Apple mentioned the storage of VM as a specific issue they have. If GV, the service, handles all calls, regardless of iPhone, Android, your home phone, by using a single phone number, then it that would have to include VM. This is what I meant by the back end still being google controlled and why I don't think Apple would go for it with their current concerns.

Edit for addition: though it is true that the iPhone VVM could be changed to pull VVM from the GV servers, likely very easily, this still leave Apple out of the loop in where the messages are stored...maybe they wouldn't actually care. Certainly their carrier partners that invested in Apple VVM servers might not like it. The more I think about it, this probably would be a workable idea, but it would cost Apple a lot of good will with the carriers to implement GV services on the iPhone themselves.


Again, all likely accurate in describing Apple's concerns. But, as you say, Apple is good at the interface and that is why users love their products and is one of Apple's advantages. If google's GV app also sucked in the interface, then users would not use it. So again, the threat is that Google might make it too compelling, too good or too convenient?


Careful, using the word limbo to describe the situation is going to leave you with some explaining to do.

Figured I would respond to this again separately. As I said in another thread, this idea is growing on me. Actually, I just read posting at theiphoneblog that had a similar suggestion.

There was another that had took it a step further. Perhaps the gigantic data centre Apple is building might be intended to provide GV like services. Again, this would piss off a lot of their carrier partners, but damn it sounds like a good idea. I'd love to see Apple do this and also allow GV on the iPhone. Let them compete on merit of the services, interface, etc. Maybe this is why Apple has not approved the GV app nor rejected the app. Perhaps the response they are pondering is their own competing service. Though it would seem unreasonable to try to delay until their data centre is done (has it even broken ground yet?)

I love fair competition between great companies, so I would really like to see this.

Given Jobs description of his feelings about carriers in the past, it wouldn't be unexpected for him to use the massive popularity of the iPhone to do an end run around the carriers now (or soon). I for one would not be sad to see Apple stick it to the carriers and cut them out of the picture.

"There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly.... We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week"

mmm, assuming these guys work 8 hours a day and 5 days per week, that means on average they have to review more than 10 apps every hour - or one every 6 minutes!

In would be much happier with the iPhone if I could customize it even though Apple's design is outstanding. I am sure - if asked - Google would confirm to Apple's design criteria.

Google Voice offers MUCH more unique features than the iPhone/ATT telephone and there may be duplicate functions in some areas but Google Voice is a lot more versatile phone service than what ATT provides. I my opinion neither of those objections justify the rejection. Also, whether I am comfortable keeping my messages and address book on Google's service or not is - again - my problem.

I guess Apple isn't really that concerned about our contacts going to Google. Snow Leopard has contact syncing with google and yahoo account built right in. Maybe they only have a concern about contacts on the iPhone being synced to google. But, since the iPhone syncs with the contacts on the Mac and now the Mac has built in syncing of contacts to google....

John B.: still waiting for you to provide any proof of your inane assertions that GV sends our contacts to google without ever asking for user confirmation or even informing the user. Not unexpected of you though, is it?

I still think Apple should develop their own version of the Google Voice concept (with a better UI!) for the iPhone and cut Google out of the deal entirely.

Their own service could be a good idea. Cutting google out would just be petty. Nothing says desperation like being afraid of competition.

still waiting.

Nothing petty about it. Google's invading Apple's and Microsoft's space. No reason Apple (and Microsoft) shouldn't return the favor. I'm pretty sure the divorce is final.

And, at the end of the day, all Google really have going for them (revenue-wise) is search and AdWords. Unless you think freebies subsidized on the back of search and AdWords is somehow "competing"?

BTW, did you ever manage to get your hands on a copy of the GV app?

So little of anything you post make any sense. Please read your first paragraph and see if you can translate any of that gibberish into something relevant to the discussion or reality. Not one sentence there makes sense, I won't bother parsing it for you.

That may be all google has going for them, in your always limited opinion, but then it has done pretty well for them, no?

You were so certain that I worked for google, why would you assume I don't have the app? I haven't, since Apple hasn't approved it, or did you miss that news? GV Mobile is freely available for JB iphones, if I choose to go that route.

It's funny, but the more you post, the more I realize you often don't really understand the topics your are replying to. This thread is a perfect example. For future reference, you might notice that people with valid points don't have to resort to fabrications to make their points...doing so would shoot their credibility all to hell.

Any luck with your search for info to back up your 'assertions'? You and I know you can't, but we know why you don't often back up your claims...don't we.