Originally Posted by djsherly
You must have wasted 2,000 words on vinea. He will never get it. He won't understand that the iPhone dialler/sms/vm does not suddenly disappear because the GV dialler is installed. He's pissed off that with GV you can choose not to expose the iPhone's ordained phone number, because that's the only number that can use the built in telephony features. That has consequences - such as not using VVM - but at any rate the GV user would know that and would have been choosing GV in preference to what has been offered on the 'host' device. It is not a replacement, it is an alternative - as in the all the original capability is still there and can still be used notwithstanding they probably would not be by a GV user, but again it should be stressed that would be a choice - or at least it might have been had apple decided to approve the app.
No, he is fully aware that every built in function remains and is unchanged. He does however, appear to believe that if a user is offered the choice of he GV service and app on the iPhone the will opt to use that interface exclusively
, thereby disrupting the experience that Apple designed on the iPhone. While Apple has created the best of breed interface, he is wrong. let's review why.
1) Apple has indeed created the best of breed interface for telephony on the iPhone. It is, as vinea himself stated, their competitive advantage (one of). Yet, how much of an advantage does he think it is if he thinks users will dump it at first chance? I don't think the will. I think the two will co-exist and be used by many users. In the same way I user Safari and FF on both my Macs and PCs. Perhaps some faith in the advantage their interface provides is in order. After all, if the interface doesn't compel users to continue to use it, it isn't much of an advantage. It is just a feature.
2) He might believe iPhone users would be confused by having an alternative interface for telephony functions. But he would have to then believe that most iPhone users are functionally retarded. Obviously they are not. Will some be confused? Maybe. Some users can't figure out basic settings or how to use OTA syncing, but Apple still offers and exposes the for users.
3) He also feels that because Apple and Google compete in the telephone device space, that Apple should use their control over the iPhone to squash any google moves in the iPhone app space. But, google apps on the iPhone do not lead to sales of Andriod devices. They lead to the use of google services, which Apple does not provide. Again, I suppose he might have so little faith in the work Apple has put into the iPhone that he believes an optional google interface on the iPhone would be so good, so compelling, so great, that users would decide they need to go buy an Android as the next device.
There are more reasons, but this is enough for now. He knows well that the iPhone itself or Apple features are not modified. His representation is that providing alternatives is the same as removing, even without actually removing. But one can really only assume this if one thinks Apple's provided options are so weak that people would drop their interfaces all together.