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 3

post #81 of 280
This isn't a criticism, per se, of the Apple store approval process.
Just an observation using simple math.

You can draw your own conclusions:

Apple stated above that they get (on average) 8500 apps per week to review, and that they have approx. 40 people to review them. Apple also stated that each app is reviewed by two people.

8500 apps / 40 people = 212 apps per reviewer per week (all calculations rounded off)

Assuming a 40-hour work week (2400 minutes),
2400 minutes / 212 apps = only 11 minutes review time per app

But each app must be reviewed by two people, so it cuts that time in half to roughly 5 1/2 minutes review time per app.

And in this very brief 5 minutes of review time, can any of these reviewers actually determine everything that Apple states they check for?

post #82 of 280
This is a total crock. Apple should be honest about its standards and intentions. Google is a rather important company, so the idea that 8,500 little apps need approving each week doesn't count for sh/t. Google is google. Apple isn't approving the app because they commercially don't want to approve it. And they probably don't have to. But Apple is playing a chump legal eagle move. They should reject the app and then actually claim the power, instead of trying to say it's their own "busy work schedule" or whatever that is denying the service. Apple is extremely quick when it wants to be.
post #83 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

http://www.google.com/googlevoice/about.html

Is THAT what all this fuss is over?? I already have most of those features with my current provider, which I pay for, which work 100% of the time. I guess the conference calling might be interesting. maybe recording calls as well. But not enough for me to blow my fuse.

No. The fuss is about the principle which govern the approval or otherwise of applications. You're just backed into a corner and are now attacking the man and not the ball.

On the submission itself - it may behoove Apple to supply context, but the whole thing reads like a sales pitch.
post #84 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

No. The fuss is about the principle which govern the approval or otherwise of applications. You're just backed into a corner and are now attacking the man and not the ball.

On the submission itself - it may behoove Apple to supply context, but the whole thing reads like a sales pitch.

Exactly. I don't see any sense in that.
post #85 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

No. The fuss is about the principle which govern the approval or otherwise of applications. You're just backed into a corner and are now attacking the man and not the ball.

On the submission itself - it may behoove Apple to supply context, but the whole thing reads like a sales pitch.

I have absolutely no problem with Apple's response, especially the openness of it. Given the number of reviewers they employ (which is enough), along with the fact that only a handful of applications have been perhaps reviewed questionably (Apple has given reasons, anyway), and their whole App Store operation is pretty impressive.

Tens of thousands of apps that have been accepted. A developer's wet dream. An infrastructure that hasn't gone down, crashed, etc. And something that's dead-easy to use.

Either Google and the few others whose apps were rejected comply with Apple's requirements and regulations, or they won't make it onto the Store. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other developers had their apps accepted (there are around 65,000 apps in the store), and some of those apps offer some impressive functionality. They complied. I see no reason to get in a huff and a puff about a mere handful that were non-compliant.

Much ado about nothing.
post #86 of 280
delete
post #87 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

Apple owns the app store>> they can and shall reject any one for any reason .
don't like it ???
Apple owes no one anything .

Go apple

Maybe you should try living in China or Iran. You'd find it most agreeable.

The rest of us meanwhile, prefer things to be rather more free and open.
post #88 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

Maybe you should try living in China or Iran. You'd find it most agreeable.

The rest of us meanwhile, prefer things to be rather more free and open.


It's a mobile service and a cell phone manufacturer. It's an issue over a tech feature, not basic human rights. Don't be so obtuse.

Apple regards their platform as their house. Software developers are guests, and they can't rearrange the furnishings. The iPhone is not a completely open platform. And AT&T, as a carrier, also has interests in the matter, naturally.

It's no secret that the Google application threatens the very existence for the need of something like AT&T. Allowing this would be completely absurd, that's a given.

Apple essentially went to bat for AT&T here. They decided to take the fall for them in order to cover up a very uncomfortable truth: mobile carriers are the ones halting the evolution of mobile apps/functionality. It's a money issue for AT&T. As a result, AT&T, with their weak 3G network, is limiting which apps the rest of the world and other better networked carriers can have.

Yes, AT&T bans using VoIP apps on the iPhone over their cellular network. But they allow VoIP apps on Windows Mobile to use their cellular network. So what's going on here? It's not about network congestion, it's just about money.

The terms in AT&T’s exclusive US contract to provide connections for Apple’s iPhone give them the power to veto online store applications that use AT&T to launch cheap calls through the Internet.

Further, as a result, Apple might be missing out on a huge opportunity with just a single software add-on to potentially quadruple their earnings. But we're all hamstrung by the current state of mobile carriers, at least in the US.

Apple isn't really to blame here. It's AT&T.

And as for "free and open" when it comes to tech . . . that's at best a subjective matter.
post #89 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I have absolutely no problem with Apple's response, especially the openness of it.

Openness. I suppose it is open enough, but doesn't the content of it make you a little uncomfortable?

Question 1:
Answer - we didn't reject it - it's not approved. Then some ramblings about how we don't want to ruin the seamlessness of the beauty of the callingness of like iPhone. But never mind there are numerous other apps which do a similar thing.

Question 2:
Answer - straight up. about as unequivocal as this whole response gets. Difficult to cock up such a short response.

Question 3:
Answer - we don't do VOIP over wireless, and (re)'consider' apps when AT&T jump up and down. Is this to say Apple is being led a little by AT&T on the approval front? Not so much is said but it is critical to understand what is not said as much as what is.

Question 4:
Answer - we were too stupid to ask the developer whether there was a VOIP element. Srsly.

Question 5:
Answer - Can't really pick much out of it - but "undocumented application protocols"? WTF is a protocol?

Question 6:

As far as I know, in the US at least you need to contract with AT&T to buy an iPhone. As a minor, you can't really do that, so I'm beat as to why protecting the children is such a big deal.

Quote:
I see no reason to get in a huff and a puff about a mere handful that were non-compliant.

Much ado about nothing.

say for example, Apple decided to reject all Bible application to protect the children. They would be non-compliant to your reasoning. Is that ado about nothing?

I'm being a little tongue in cheek here but I still think you're missing the point.
post #90 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Openness. I suppose it is open enough, but doesn't the content of it make you a little uncomfortable?

Question 1:
Answer - we didn't reject it - it's not approved. Then some ramblings about how we don't want to ruin the seamlessness of the beauty of the callingness of like iPhone. But never mind there are numerous other apps which do a similar thing.

Question 2:
Answer - straight up. about as unequivocal as this whole response gets. Difficult to cock up such a short response.

Question 3:
Answer - we don't do VOIP over wireless, and (re)'consider' apps when AT&T jump up and down. Is this to say Apple is being led a little by AT&T on the approval front? Not so much is said but it is critical to understand what is not said as much as what is.

Question 4:
Answer - we were too stupid to ask the developer whether there was a VOIP element. Srsly.

Question 5:
Answer - Can't really pick much out of it - but "undocumented application protocols"? WTF is a protocol?

Question 6:

As far as I know, in the US at least you need to contract with AT&T to buy an iPhone. As a minor, you can't really do that, so I'm beat as to why protecting the children is such a big deal.



say for example, Apple decided to reject all Bible application to protect the children. They would be non-compliant to your reasoning. Is that ado about nothing?

I'm being a little tongue in cheek here but I still think you're missing the point.

I understand your point, and there are guidelines and compliance decisions that could be interpreted as (and often are) unjust.

I did clarify my response in my last post, however. I'm essentially shifting the blame to where it seems to belong: AT&T.
post #91 of 280
A minor can buy or be given an iPod touch and download the same applications, parental controls are available for Apps like Safari but not for third party Apps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

Question 6:

As far as I know, in the US at least you need to contract with AT&T to buy an iPhone. As a minor, you can't really do that, so I'm beat as to why protecting the children is such a big deal.


As a general response.

Google voice is only available in the US and as far as I know is "Invitation Only", no-one outside the US really cares, at least 50% of iPhone buyers are unaffected by this.

If you don't like what Apple or AT&T are doing there is nothing to stop you from going elsewhere for functionality that suits your needs, hence there is no monopoly involved here.

So is this Google voice thing supported by advertising, after all that's how Google generates revenue.

The only "freedom" that American's seem interested in, is freedom to whine.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #92 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

Apple owns the app store>> they can and shall reject any one for any reason .
don't like it ???
Apple owes no one anything .

Go apple

So you think the app store should be like Augusta or something? a club for the eleitists that Apple happens to like, and not open to its competitors?

Could you imagine the anger and action that would happen if Microsoft blocked Firefox or iTunes on windows or Google from IE? that is exactly what Apple is doing on the iphopne app store...
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #93 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by dak splunder View Post

Ooooh, this continues to infuriate me. Google Voice is NOT a VoIP service! It is a phone call forwarding service. Calls on both sides are connected over the phone lines. Sure, the call travels over the internet in between the two ends, but Google Voice relies 100% on actual phone service to connect the calls on both ends!!

This would be like restricting you from calling for technical support using your iPhone, since you call in with a phone number, but then are connected via VoIP to a call center in India for your conversation.

Skype is VoIP. It would use the iPhone's cellular data connection to connect your phone to someone else, thus bypassing your AT&T minutes *and* using considerable bandwidth. It makes sense why AT&T might want to ban that use (alas). But Google Voice is a phone call, made using your AT&T minutes, not using any data bandwidth, 100% un-differentiatable from any other phone call.

This doesn't make any sense.

:d

Apple made this statement in reference to a different question concerning any contractual limits. In response to whether Google Voice used VoIP Apple did not know. The app never got that far. The problem stems from Google changing the core functions of the Iphone which has always been prohibited. Apple has every right to not allow another company to sell a product in their store that undermines their company. Can you imagine going in to Walmart and find them with a kiosk in their store where Target sells Walmart customers to come to their shop to try their experience.

I agree with Apple. If you want the Google experience get a google phone. Why should they use their resources to house applications that can harm their business. Even the free apps cost Apple something, bandwidth is not free. If they create a web app app does not include it on their servers and does not care what they do. They will even include a link to it from their website. Apple knows the Iphone is popular because of its consistent interface. Google is trying to establish their phone identity. They want to keep the interface for their product consistent with Android to push their interface to Apples customers. They also want access to the messages killing Visual Voice Mail, and copies contacts to Google servers which is prohibited by any app.
post #94 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

Apple owns the app store>> they can and shall reject any one for any reason .
don't like it ???
Apple owes no one anything .

Go apple

bruce, while I agree with you to a signficant degree, there really needs to be some sort of transparency between Apple and developers.

Yes, the iPhone is an incrediblr platform, and I'm sure we can depend on its popularity to carry it forward even if a few developers leave. But losing any developer at all due to ethics issues is a problem.

In this case, AT&T is the one to blame. Apple at this point has little choice in the matter, and I have te feling that if it were Verizon or any other US carrier, we'd see the same rejection of GV. The carriers stand to lose a great deal with GV around. This is a given. Apple was covering for AT&T here.

Apple isn't holding back innovation in the mobile app sector. The major carriers are.
post #95 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

A minor can buy or be given an iPod touch and download the same applications, parental controls are available for Apps like Safari but not for third party Apps.




As a general response.

Google voice is only available in the US and as far as I know is "Invitation Only", no-one outside the US really cares, at least 50% of iPhone buyers are unaffected by this.

If you don't like what Apple or AT&T are doing there is nothing to stop you from going elsewhere for functionality that suits your needs, hence there is no monopoly involved here.

So is this Google voice thing supported by advertising, after all that's how Google generates revenue.

The only "freedom" that American's seem interested in, is freedom to whine.

I would be one of the 50% who doesn't care - on vodafone. this has its own issues but I think you've missed the boat as well. It's the application approval policy at issue here not whether this particular app has any intrinsic worth.
post #96 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by piukam View Post

This isn't a criticism, per se, of the Apple store approval process.
Just an observation using simple math.

You can draw your own conclusions:

Apple stated above that they get (on average) 8500 apps per week to review, and that they have approx. 40 people to review them. Apple also stated that each app is reviewed by two people.

8500 apps / 40 people = 212 apps per reviewer per week (all calculations rounded off)

Assuming a 40-hour work week (2400 minutes),
2400 minutes / 212 apps = only 11 minutes review time per app

But each app must be reviewed by two people, so it cuts that time in half to roughly 5 1/2 minutes review time per app.

And in this very brief 5 minutes of review time, can any of these reviewers actually determine everything that Apple states they check for?


As Apple states in their sworn* testimony, "…We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and up."

Now, if you and a few others ever took the time to review Apple's iPhone Developer site and did some due diligence, e.g., reading and watching a few videos, you as many of us have, would find that the primary reason most apps are not accepted on the first go-around is due to bugs.

If you were developing an iPhone App, you would know that the SDK contains everything to help create and debug your app in virtually every step of the process. It even guides you if a problem arises. However, In discussions with other developer and seeing it personally at Apples iPhone developer events, a lot of developers are submitting apps either in haste, ignorance or simply trying to get assistance.

In support of Apple's reviewers, it only takes a few seconds to determine if an app is buggy or will crash under usage tests. Immediately the app will be rejected. It is no secret why, it is in the agreement we all accept to become a developer. The same holds true if our app uses third-party logos and proprietary materials; you must submit proof of usage from the owner. You just can't grab other peoples stuff and unilaterally use it on your own app.

Apple's guidelines are for most of us clearly stated. Particularly if you read them first. And as now being evidenced when we are apprised of the facts; it is the 'developers' who have been the primary cause of their rejections or seemingly long delays for approvals.

Apple's approval process in the most part is computer generated. It is not just some mickey mouse utility that casually peruses the application. Identifying issues, whether they be software bugs, violations to third-party usages or contravening of corporate policies re content doesn't take a millennium to flag. If anything, the speed at which the 40 reviewers have approved the 65,000 apps out of 200,000 applications and updates, does not support those who accuse Apple of draconian policies.

*For those of you who have denigrated comments by accusing Apple of lying, perhaps a little course on your judicial system is in order. To openly declare that Apple would overtly commit perjury is a testament of not only ignorance but stupidity.

However, there is the human factor. To your question, "…can any of these reviewers actually determine everything that Apple states they check for?" Of course not. That is why Google Voice has yet to be rejected at all. This one just needs more due diligence. Due diligence that Apple has the unilateral right to evoke. Just as our governments, legal systems, schools, churches, parents, etc., have under constitutional law.
post #97 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLad View Post

Again Seriously! Jaiklbreaking is all well and good if Apple isn't constantly trying to brick your iPhone with updates. Who fixes Apple software issues? You void any warranties on the phone thus have to pay ouf pocket for any hardware repairs, which is costly. If it can't be repaired then you have to pay full price for a new one. This is terrorism, plain and simple. Keep consumers passive through fear and intimidation which is why the majority of people don't jailbreak. Application developers would stand to save the fee it pays Apple for inclusion in the app store if they choose to ignore the App store and develop what they want. They stand to make more money that way and they can update things quickly. Apple and AT&T would loose control. Which why this BS has not worked with other smart phones and carriers in te past and why these same carriers are trying to follow the same model of a proprietary app store and restrict everything.

Cable companies went through something similar when they refused ISP access to their cable internet infrastructure (the highway if you will) which the FCC intervened and prevented.

The bricking only happened once - and there's no proof Apple intentionally did that (since it only got bricked if you jailbroke a certain way).

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want it to be YOUR phone, then you're telling Apple to get lost - no updates (which comes with terms of service), no warranty service, no cellular service.

And lose is spelled lose. Loose is a different word with a different meaning.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #98 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by bartfat View Post

Oh this is total BS. Yes, I know that Apple has enforced this rule about duplication of features, but honestly, this clearly isn't duplication of features, since the iPhone doesn't have voicemail transcription, doesn't have free SMS, doesn't connect to Google Voice so you can use one number to ring all your phones, doesn't have cheap international calling standard. So I say the FCC should just force them to approve it... and let the consumers decide whether they want to use it or not. And if consumers were so concerned with Google handling their data, they wouldn't use the service in the first place. This is not a reason to keep reviewing it... it's like saying they're trying to protect people from themselves from signing up with Google, who seems to be legitimate, but also does identity theft?!?

Some people are awfully dense.

Read Apple's letter. It's not about DUPLICATION of features, it's about replacement of the entire UI. Apple has spent a fortune developing a UI and (just like on the Mac), part of their marketing proposition is a clean, simple, consistent UI. Google voice replaces Apple's phone functionality with their own, losing the consistency and clarity that the iPhone is known for.

Apple is not protecting AT&T here, they''re protecting the iPhone ecosystem from becoming a free-for-all.

If you want a free-for-all, go with Android or build your own system. But criticizing Apple for doing what they always said they were going to do (maintain a consistent UI) is just plain absurd.

The item about information security is additional information unrelated to the first issue. Frankly, I LIKE the fact that Apple's terms of service include that the app developer is not allowed to steal my contact list. Why do they need it?

Once again, if you don't value your security and like the way Google does things, build your own phone system. Or write to Google and tell them to make it a web application like it is on other platforms.
"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 #99 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

So you think the app store should be like Augusta or something? a club for the eleitists that Apple happens to like, and not open to its competitors?

Could you imagine the anger and action that would happen if Microsoft blocked Firefox or iTunes on windows or Google from IE? that is exactly what Apple is doing on the iphopne app store...

Once again, the iPhone platform is a different model than the PC model. It's an iPod platform model or Gaming console/handheld platform model. There hasn't been much anger over the iPod, Wii, PS, Xbox, DS, or PSP...

If one doesn't like the model, there are alternatives now - Android for one.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #100 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

As Apple states in their sworn* testimony, "We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and up."

Now, if you and a few others ever took the time to review Apple's iPhone Developer site and did some due diligence, e.g., reading and watching a few videos, you as many of us have, would find that the primary reason most apps are not accepted on the first go-around is due to bugs.

If you were developing an iPhone App, you would know that the SDK contains everything to help create and debug your app in virtually every step of the process. It even guides you if a problem arises. However, In discussions with other developer and seeing it personally at Apples iPhone developer events, a lot of developers are submitting apps either in haste, ignorance or simply trying to get assistance.

Agree and if you read the reviews, lots of buggy apps that crash still get past the reviewers. And as a software developer, it wouldn't surprise that 99% of apps submitted have bugs.

That said, there are lots of apps that are similar to one another (i.e. series of books, or I Whack), so the reviewers probably do get to spend more than 5.5 minutes per app.
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #101 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

bruce, while I agree with you to a signficant degree, there really needs to be some sort of transparency between Apple and developers.

Yes, the iPhone is an incrediblr platform, and I'm sure we can depend on its popularity to carry it forward even if a few developers leave. But losing any developer at all due to ethics issues is a problem.

In this case, AT&T is the one to blame. Apple at this point has little choice in the matter, and I have te feling that if it were Verizon or any other US carrier, we'd see the same rejection of GV. The carriers stand to lose a great deal with GV around. This is a given. Apple was covering for AT&T here.

Apple isn't holding back innovation in the mobile app sector. The major carriers are.

Did you even read the letter from Apple explaining the reason for rejection. It has to do with Googles desire to make changes to Apple's core functions on the device itself and promote their own interface while deactivating features like visual voice mail which make the Iphone what it is. Any app on their servers should not be able to harm apple's business. It's like paying for someone to come in to your house and throw mud on your kitchen floor while you continue to mop it up.

Apple innovated with the Iphone and changed everything. They created a great experience that continues to hook new fans. We use the Iphone because we like how it works. Google and palm want to be able to ride on Apples work to make money for themselves and that is not going to happen. If their products and way of doing things is so great, consumers will answer by buying their products in groves, just like Apple's customers come to them.

Do you think Black Berry would allow Apple to place an Apple on their store that changed the way their phone worked, showed Apples way of doing things so next time they would just get and Iphone. They could also after a time discontinue the app forcing the user to go to them when its time to upgrade.
post #102 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Some people are awfully dense.

Read Apple's letter. It's not about DUPLICATION of features, it's about replacement of the entire UI. Apple has spent a fortune developing a UI and (just like on the Mac), part of their marketing proposition is a clean, simple, consistent UI. Google voice replaces Apple's phone functionality with their own, losing the consistency and clarity that the iPhone is known for.

Apple is not protecting AT&T here, they''re protecting the iPhone ecosystem from becoming a free-for-all.

If you want a free-for-all, go with Android or build your own system. But criticizing Apple for doing what they always said they were going to do (maintain a consistent UI) is just plain absurd.

The item about information security is additional information unrelated to the first issue. Frankly, I LIKE the fact that Apple's terms of service include that the app developer is not allowed to steal my contact list. Why do they need it?

Once again, if you don't value your security and like the way Google does things, build your own phone system. Or write to Google and tell them to make it a web application like it is on other platforms.


I agree completely! It's silly to suggest that Apple should offer a product in their store and on their servers the hurts their business. The Iphone is all about the UI. Change that and its not an Iphone. They should just make a web app since it doesn't use the protocols anyway. The only reason for it to need to be an native app is to steal your contacts. Now they have their email and phone numbers to track them and for advertising.

Think about it. Google sells nothing to the public. They have one goal. Gain access to as much customer contact information as possible. The more contact info they have, the more advertising they can sell.
post #103 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

Did you even read the letter from Apple explaining the reason for rejection. It has to do with Googles desire to make changes to Apple's core functions on the device itself and promote their own interface while deactivating features like visual voice mail

Which I don't believe.

GV offers an alternative. it doesn't actually replace anything. The fear is that users will use GV INSTEAD of the other features. Which means AT&T will be out some money. The VisualVoicemail is beside the point.

Apple didn't want to come out and blame AT&T publicly, for whatever reason.

It's an AT&T issue. Apple is smokescreening. And right now it seems they have no choice in the matter.
post #104 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

Do you think Black Berry would allow Apple to place an Apple on their store that changed the way their phone worked, showed Apples way of doing things so next time they would just get and Iphone. They could also after a time discontinue the app forcing the user to go to them when its time to upgrade.

Google Voice is already available for Blackberry & Android.

So why does RIM allow GV and not Apple?

Kind of takes the wind out of your posting.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/14...erry-are-here/
post #105 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

Link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/te...s/22apple.html

Click on Letter in the last paragraph for the response.

I'll make it even easier. Here's the link to the response from Google.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...gle_Filing.pdf

I just read this letter and find it interesting that they chose to make the reason for rejection confidential when Apple didn't. They talk about their web version that is currently available and how it is limited compared to the native app. This is not the same as an Iphone web app though. The features they list can be done as a web app. Push notifications are another matter. If they want access they have to play by the rules. The feature they desire most as listed in this letter is to be in the app store. Google explains the distribution advantage of the most popular app store. The next question allows them to proclaim their better way with no approval process and completely open system. Can U say Hack me PLEASE!

Google wants to ride Apple's back while gaining access to their customers personal information. They make a point about the most popular store. The thing is, it got that way because Apple created it to work a certain way and spent a lot of money marketing it. Should Chevy have to promote Honda in their stores. NOT HAPPENING!!!
post #106 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Here we go again. Apple does not have a monopoly in cell phones, so none of the above applies. Never has, and probably never will. End of story.

Apple does not need to corner the entire cell phone market to have a monopoly. They maintain an effective monopoly on the marketing of software available for the iPhone and effectively prevent innovations that endanger their revenue stream through anti-competitive behavior. They are engaged in restraint of trade and the whole world knows it.

The problem with most of the Apple apologists on here (not accusing you of that, Mark, btw) is that they have grown up in an era where laissez faire ideology has been blared at them from birth. There is no laissez faire, never will be, every corporate abuse is accompanied by a cadre of well-paid-off legislators holding the gate open for them to the exclusion of everyone else.

Apple, with their subtle threat of bricking your phone effectively keeps all but the most technically savvy or ballsy out of the jailbreak arena. That is restraint of trade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Please spare me the Monopolistic tactic over a phone that has 5% of the mobile market. Your head is so far up Google's rectum you're able to tickle it's tonsils.

I didn't mention Google and could not care less about them. My statement applies as much to Netshare and every other app that has been shown the door by Apple because the product they are selling might interfere with Apples revenue stream. So tell me, how does it feel to be Steve Job's cockswab?
post #107 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post


Google wants to ride Apple's back while gaining access to their customers personal information. They make a point about the most popular store. The thing is, it got that way because Apple created it to work a certain way and spent a lot of money marketing it. Should Chevy have to promote Honda in their stores. NOT HAPPENING!!!

Do you have any idea what Apple does with your information? Do you know how secure their MobileMe app is that stores all of your information? If you don't have Mobile me, do you know what Apple is doing with your contact list?

Do you know what Apple does with the GPS data it gathers on where you have been?

This can be said for ANY cell phone company. Apple has access to all of your contacts.

Does that make them evil? Apple gives you the ability to synch via iTunes your contacts with Google Mail. Why is it now being considered a bad thing when it's been around for ages?
post #108 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

Google Voice is already available for Blackberry & Android.

So why does RIM allow GV and not Apple?

Kind of takes the wind out of your posting.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/14...erry-are-here/

I had a hard time finding info but it seems that Google has not consistent UI for this because it has to work for many phones. So them changing the one that actually works and really hasn't change much but continues to grow because of ease of use seems foreign to me. Most of Rims phones have hardware interfaces. Google couldn't change those, and their touch screen phones haven't been popular enough to make a difference. I wouldn't sell or offer for free a product that undermines my product or service. That would be stupid. With Rim email is their star feature, so anything to enhance their other services is welcome.
post #109 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

I had a hard time finding info but it seems that Google has not consistent UI for this because it has to work for many phones. So them changing the one that actually works and really hasn't change much but continues to grow because of ease of use seems foreign to me. Most of Rims phones have hardware interfaces. Google couldn't change those, and their touch screen phones haven't been popular enough to make a difference. I wouldn't sell or offer for free a product that undermines my product or service. That would be stupid. With Rim email is their star feature, so anything to enhance their other services is welcome.

RIM (as of August 17th, 2009) is the fastest growing company in the world. I think they know a little more than you do about what to offer on their phones.

Quote from Article and Link

Link:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32447065

Quote:

Thanks to those booming sales, Research in Motion ranks No. 1 on Fortune's 2009 list of Fastest-Growing Companies, with a three-year average earnings-per-share growth of 84 percent and revenue growth of 77 percent. Even after last year's stock market meltdown, shares of RIM have a three-year annualized total return of 45 percent. Apple, which is three times the size of RIM in both sales and market value, checks in at No. 39.
post #110 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

Do you have any idea what Apple does with your information? Do you know how secure their MobileMe app is that stores all of your information? If you don't have Mobile me, do you know what Apple is doing with your contact list?

Do you know what Apple does with the GPS data it gathers on where you have been?

This can be said for ANY cell phone company. Apple has access to all of your contacts.

Does that make them evil? Apple gives you the ability to synch via iTunes your contacts with Google Mail. Why is it now being considered a bad thing when it's been around for ages?

1. I trust Apple with my contact information more than I do Google. They have different goals.
Apple is a producer of goods and products that use information internally to better serve me, by making better products and services. They also clearly state in the license the intent of use. I also have the option of not using moblieme with my Iphone.
Google on the other hand is a web advertising company that creates software to give away that other companies normally sell. Their only goal is to obtain information so other companies can market to you. I personally hate web ads, so I surely don't want to my information being used to give me more of it. If I thought the destruction of Google would wipe out web ads I would sign on in a minute.

2. Its not apple I would be worried about its third parties. Apple is clearly protective in these matters as apps that secretly try to access this information have be rejected. Any approved app including Apple's requires my approval to send this information out. I can use it to find my phone after agreeing that its ok.

3. Yes apple does have access to them, if I use mobileme. If not, they don't. They are on my phone and on my computer. In Palm's system they have access because they backup to their servers. If I wanted my contacts on Googles servers I could do so from my computer. It should not be required for me to use an app on my Iphone, since even the web apps can access contact information to make calls or send messages. The problem is they are not looking to just use this info for the purposes of the app. If so, why would need to copy the data to their servers. Oh yeah, they are a marketing company that writes software to give away to get consumer information for their clients.
post #111 of 280
As it's been posted by some, this looks to me like Google is using their app as a Trojan Horse (not in the PC virus sense, but in the Trojan Horse actual sense)

I'm surprised Apple didn't reject it immediately and had to add a disclaimer to their site.
post #112 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

i will start off by saying that i'm not a fan of google, am a fan but not a fanboy of apple, and am somewhat neutral on at&t, at least in comparison to other wireless carriers. (i think most of the responses from those who actually seemed to have read the article and q&a, and even those who didn't, break down pretty much along the lines of how one feels about the respective companies, so, no point in leaving any doubt.) i also have zero interest in using gv or most other google services.

First, as to the part about, "that [the iphone users entire contacts database] will only be used in appropriate ways," i think the only appropriate way this could be used by google is, not at all. However, i doubt very much that google does not make very intensive use of all the contact, and other, information you give them, wittingly or unwittngly. If apple is truly sincere in what they say here, then, i applaud them.

(of course, the cynic in me wonders if this isn't just smoke, although, the idealist hopes not.)

as for the rest, i'm somewhat surprised to find that at&t was not at least in part behind the rejection/holdup of gv.

I'm also sympathetic to apple's position here. (and, since i have no interest in gv, clearly, i'm not upset by not being able to use it. Replace, duplicate, mimic, call it what you will, it seems pretty clear that the purpose of the gv app is to take over the telephony/messaging/contacts user experience, effectively turning the iphone into a tool to serve googles ends, at least for those users who would use gv. I can clearly see why apple would view this as a competitor's trojan horse.

And, while perhaps not for posters on this forum, if the gv app works according to apple's rather summary description, i do think it could potentially cause a not insignificant amount of user confusion. For example, if a relatively non tech savvy person installs the gv app and starts intermixing use of it with the built in apps of the same functionality, they might well find it confusing that they have voicemails in two different places, receive text messages in two different apps, and so on.

Obviously, this also creates a potential support problem for apple. I mean, it's not like you can call google for support, can you? (well, honestly, i don't know, but i'm not aware of any google service that they offer phone support for.) and would some users not even distinguish which app they are trying to call or message from, or would they not just assume it's "an iphone problem" and call apple, perhaps neglecting to mention that they aren't using the built-in apps for these things?

Still, i think the biggest problem apple has with gv is, again, based on the summary description, its obvious intent of taking over the iphone user experience for google's benefit.

I know a lot of people think google is an absolutely wonderful, benign company. I on the other hand think they tossed the "do no evil" plan pretty much before they wrote it down. To me at least, it's clear that they intend to control the technology world, and as much as they can reach beyond it, as much as they can, and on a scope that microsoft never even imagined.

So, if apple throws a roadblock in their way, in the interests of self preservation, that slows them down a bit, i have no problem with that.


thank you!!!!!!!
post #113 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

if apple states that ATT's TOS has something to do with the rejection, how had ATT "no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store.."

Response to two different questions.
They were asked if there were any contractual restrictions on apps in general, but the GV hold up is based on Google changing the user experience with is not allowed in and app they will be hosted on their servers.
post #114 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogorant View Post

Incorrect. GV currently has an iPhone "optimized" web interface. Sucks compared to the best native iPhone app, Sean Kovacs GV Mobile. And we're pretty safe in assuming that the Google GV app would have been way ahead of GV Mobile, no offense to Sean.

The web interface is not the same as the Web App they are writing. They are based on Ajax programing and just hosted online.
post #115 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan View Post

My take on the interesting part is how Apple & AT&T are both pointing the finger at each other and nobody is pointing the finger at Google (because they did no wrong).

What are you talking about? AT&T said they had nothing to do with it. Apple said AT&T had nothing to do with it. Where is the finger pointing?
post #116 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle View Post

1. I trust Apple with my contact information more than I do Google. They have different goals.
Apple is a producer of goods and products that use information internally to better serve me, by making better products and services. They also clearly state in the license the intent of use. I also have the option of not using moblieme with my Iphone.
Google on the other hand is a web advertising company that creates software to give away that other companies normally sell. Their only goal is to obtain information so other companies can market to you. I personally hate web ads, so I surely don't want to my information being used to give me more of it. If I thought the destruction of Google would wipe out web ads I would sign on in a minute.

2. Its not apple I would be worried about its third parties. Apple is clearly protective in these matters as apps that secretly try to access this information have be rejected. Any approved app including Apple's requires my approval to send this information out. I can use it to find my phone after agreeing that its ok.

3. Yes apple does have access to them, if I use mobileme. If not, they don't. They are on my phone and on my computer. In Palm's system they have access because they backup to their servers. If I wanted my contacts on Googles servers I could do so from my computer. It should not be required for me to use an app on my Iphone, since even the web apps can access contact information to make calls or send messages. The problem is they are not looking to just use this info for the purposes of the app. If so, why would need to copy the data to their servers. Oh yeah, they are a marketing company that writes software to give away to get consumer information for their clients.

TechCrunch has an entirely different take as well as many other sites.

Quote regarding the contacts and link to the article.

Link
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21...t-and-the-fcc/

Quote

Apple: In addition, the iPhone users entire Contacts database is transferred to Googles servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.

Reality: Complete fabrication, way beyond misleading. The Google Voice app can access the iPhones contacts database, like thousands of other iPhone apps. But the Google Voice app never syncs the contacts database to their own servers. There is no option for users to do this. However, Apple offers the ability to sync iPhone contacts with Google via iTunes. So not only is Apples statement untrue, but they also provide this exact feature themselves via their own service.

So how did Google answer the same question in their own separate letter to the FCC, also made publicly available today? We dont know, because Google requested that the answer be redacted. But my guess is that the answer, which the FCC has and can compare to Apples response, tells a significantly different (approximately the exact opposite)
....

Last paragraph of article.
This isnt about protecting users, its about controlling them. And thats not what Apple should be about. Put the users first, Steve, and dont lie to us. Were not that dumb.
post #117 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

So, you were against apps providing 'replacement's for built in functions...yet you claim to use some...double standards time?

EDIT: also, he wasn't jumping to conclusions. The Apple letter mentions SMS as one of the features that concerned them. So you know, way to read.

I did read the letter. Apple says GoogleVoice would've *replaced* the iPhone functionality for phone, voicemail and texts, it doesn't say GV offered an *alternative* to SMS, Phone, etc.

Quote:
The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature.

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.
Quote:
In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.

If you're so enamoured with Google, why don't you buy a Google Phone? Oh, because it doesn't exist...

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #118 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manos del destino View Post

This response is a lie. Apple is actively engaged in restraint of trade via illegal monopolistic control of the app store. In fact, the whole notion of an exclusive Apple Store without alternatives is monopolistic and flagrant restraint of trade.

The iPhone doesn't have NEARLY enough cell phone marketshare to be a monopoly. Apple doesn't control AT&T's wireless network to have a monopoly vertically. AT&T's network is open to other cell phone manufacturers. Apple doesn't own a patent on all smartphones, and they don't own a patent on apps stores. Anyone can build their own phone, their own phone OS, their own app store. Anyone can negotiate their own contract with AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc. The fact that most of the implementations of cell phones by Apple's competitors are truly Teh Suck isn't Apple's fault. Google easily has the resources to build a true iPhone competitor, and yet they leverage the same crappy phones that the wireless phone manufacturers have been designing for years. There is no barrier to entry for Google to be in that market if that's what they chose to do.

I really wish some forum posters would take an undergrad business law class, instead of assuming they know what restraint of trade refers to or what a monopoly is.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #119 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I know a lot of people think Google is an absolutely wonderful, benign company. I on the other hand think they tossed the "do no evil" plan pretty much before they wrote it down. To me at least, it's clear that they intend to control the technology world, and as much as they can reach beyond it, as much as they can, and on a scope that Microsoft never even imagined.

So, if Apple throws a roadblock in their way, in the interests of self preservation, that slows them down a bit, I have no problem with that.

Bravo!

This little scuffle between Google and Apple is merely the early skirmishes between Apple's and Google's upcoming divorce and war. The FCC is just butting its head into normal business practices. The no-poaching I can understand the FCC looking at. But this App Store business between Apple and Google is just the start of Apple and Google's frenemy status changing to plain old enemy status.

How could Apple not think so? Google spends millions of dollars on Android, gives it away for free, starts a handset and telco alliance to build devices for it, and the devices are ending up to be iPhone clones!

Then they proceed to release a web browser based on Apple's own sourced and funded Webkit project while continuing to fund Mozilla.

Then they announce a new and free operating system in ChromeOS. Undoubtedly that OS will be competing with Apple devices.

I know a lot of you just want to have a bunch of features and capability for your devices, but to Apple and Google, there are overarching issues that affect the health and wealth of each other's company. Just ask Apple and IBM what happened in the 80s and 90s with regard to friend and enemy status with Microsoft.

Apple has to protect itself and if it means divorcing itself from Google, sp be it.
post #120 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manos del destino View Post

Apple does not need to corner the entire cell phone market to have a monopoly. They maintain an effective monopoly on the marketing of software available for the iPhone and effectively prevent innovations that endanger their revenue stream through anti-competitive behavior. They are engaged in restraint of trade and the whole world knows it.

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

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

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

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

"See Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36, 54-55, 57-58 (1977) (“Vertical restrictions promote interbrand competition by allowing the manufacturer to achieve certain efficiencies in the distribution of his products. These ‘redeeming virtues’ are implicit in every decision sustaining vertical restrictions under the rule of reason. Economists have identified a number of ways in which manufacturers can use such restrictions to compete more effectively against other manufacturers” – such as inducing retailers to make “investment of capital and labor” or “engage in promotional activities,” as well as ensuring product quality and preventing free riding. “Such restrictions, in varying forms, are widely used in our free market economy. . . . [T]here is substantial scholarly and judicial authority supporting their economic utility. There is relatively little authority to the contrary.”). See also Richard J. Wegener, et al, Restricted Distribution 2009: Thirtysomething Sylvania and the State of Non-Price Vertical Restraints, American Law Institute – American Bar Association, SP050 ALI-ABA 43 (March 2009); William J. Kolasky, Jr., Antitrust Enforcement Guidelines for Strategic Alliances, Practicing Law Institute (July-August 1998)."

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