Google says Voice was "rejected" from iPhone App Store - Page 2

And this is half a lie, if someone calls you with YOUR iPhone number, it's routed to iPhone Visual Voicemail.

Debatable. But when the government asks for comments Apple and AT&T shouldn't lie. Those letters were beyond deceptive and both companies should have their feet held to the fire over them.

Let's correct your bolding of Apple's statement.


"The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhones distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhones core mobile telephone functionalityThe Google Voice application replaces Apples Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apples Visual Voicemail

Their own example of 'replacing' make it clear they do not mean removing. It 'replaces' it by 'routing' calls through a different number...not be actually removing any core files. Which, one would hope you would understand by now, would be virtually impossible...do you think Apple's AppStore installer on the iPhone could be instructed to remove 'core' iPhone functionality? Really?

Even their wording choice of "by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number"m which is clear enough, is misleading to some. Only calls that are made to your GV number would go to your GV voice mail. ANY calls made to your iPhone phone number would go to your carrier VVM, as normal.

Let me have the keys to your car then.

Yea, I thought so.


It's because Apple doesn't trust Google and for good reason.


Apple is a vertically integrated company, meaning THEY provide the core hardware and software.

If Google's programs gain so much widespread use, THEY can dictate the hardware, much like Microsoft does.

When Google's software breaches everyone's security and privacy one day, only Apple with their OWN core programs will be safe, because Apple has it's hardware business on the line if it fails in security and or privacy.

Google has nothing to lose, it's in Uncle Sam's pocket.

Exactly. Complete garbage. And from google from crying out loud. Google calling for anti-trust protection is the proverbial pope calling someone else catholic.

Bad analogy, giving my keys is like giving someone access to core carrier equipment.

So, how access to call API's is harmful to carrier networks


This doesn't explain treats to carrier network

Are you an IP lawyer? I didn't think so... So, are you so sure of that? I seem to remember reading about how similar thought processes got IBM and Microsoft in trouble in the past...

Which doesn't change the fact that your iPhone has at least the same functionality now as it did the day you bought it.

Although the proponents of GV keep beating this point over the head, it hasn't seemed to me that anyone is really confused on this issue about what Apple meant by 'replacing'.

I generally think Apple should allow pretty much any app to run on the iPhone, including those that some might find objectionable, but it's clear that the dual purpose of GV is to subvert the iPhone as a platform, and to allow google to get their hands on as much information about you and anyone in your contacts or anyone who calls you as they can.

In the first case, I think Apple is justified, in every sense of the word, in protecting themselves by rejecting GV.

In the second case, I think it's insane to turn over all of your personal information to Google. But, what really irks me is Google enticing you with their tech candy to turn over my personal information to them as well, without my permission.

1. I doubt very much Google will care if Apple built a version of Safari for Android.

2. As for you not wanting Google invading all your tech, that is totally your decision and if that's how you feel, that is totally fine. But Apple merely allowing a GV app doesn't mean you are required to download it and install it on your iPhone. I don't really want fart noise apps on any smartphone I ever own, but that doesn't mean that Apple should disallow them for anybody that does want them. The bottomline is that other than the rather dubious "replicating core functionality" claim, a GV app does not in any way breach Apple's app store policies, nor their agreement with AT&T (at least none that has been made public) and is being held up for ambiguous reasons not germane to what is best for customers.

3. So then I assume you would also be in favor of Microsoft blocking use of iTunes on Windows PCs or Google blocking Macs when trying to access Gmail?


I really don't understand this argument. If you think Apple can do no wrong, then just say so. It would make more sense than what a lot of you are saying. But before you go and say that because a company made a product they can and should be allowed to cripple it any way they want, imagine a company you hate doing the same thing to Apple or a company you love, and then tell everybody how you're okay with it.

The other argument I keep seeing in favor of Apple blocking the app that I don't understand is that GV would cause a potential security breach. Could someone please explain to me how GV is any less secure than the address book on your iPhone, in Skype, or for that matter the one on your Mac itself? Before I worried about the security of an app that had just a bunch of phone numbers, I'd worry about the security of an app like the Mint app which has access to your bank accounts and credit card information for God's sake. I'm sure if security was the only problem, Google could make the app at least as secure as the Mint app.

Google created an OS that they have no control over, so if Apple wants to build a version of Safari for android they can-- and based on the last 6 months of decisions they've been making, they should do so if they wish to have any meaningful share of mobile browsers in a couple years.

No one is saying that Apple doesn't have the right to keep it out They do, it's their store and they can make any decision that doesn't take customer wishes into account that they like. It's just a bad business decision because basically, they are saying what you do in your last sentence to THEIR CUSTOMERS!! If you don't like, then buy someone else's product.

REALLY? As an Apple fanboy you support that approach? I don't as a fanboy or a stock holder. I want Apple to be viable. I want them to have the share to innovate,change the game. But decisions like this will hand the mobile OS win to Google/Android.

Right now it isn't viable to switch to Android. The Phones suck and they all seem to be on T-mobile-- which frankly is a selling point to me after 18 months of AT & T. But there are something like 19 android phones coming out in the next 6 months. Do you and APple really think they will all suck? How arrogant can this company be?

And when a good one or two comes out and the Android app store starts to really develop, the Iphone will be a fringe player. It looks good now and they have sold a ton but this kind of nonsense will drive people away from the platform.

Mark my words-- and I really hope I'm wrong because I love my Iphone and want it to stay viable-- but people will look back on these APP store problems as the start of Apple losing the market share war.... Defending Apple doesn't show loyalty, it shows a lack of business sense. They've tried this approach before-- trying to control everything-- and we all know how that turned out. I sense this isn't going to turn out much better...

LOL You're right. How dare I voice an opinion. It's amazing how uneducated some folks are about how much data Google collects on each of us and then uses that data to market to us directly and pointedly. All of the IT folks seem to be under the Google spell... "Google is great... they will never know too much about you... share what you search, when you search, who calls you... they are the best... Google will not hurt you... you are getting sleepy..." LMAO Meh.

Actually it's a good analogy, because it's just like you giving me your keys and me giving me my word that I won't drive your car.

You're the one being ignorant. Google negotiates with the Telcos just how they want the Android platform to operate within their ecosystem.

Android SDK:


Apple SDK:


Google is focusing on the Server and Apple is focusing on the Client. It's obvious that within their respective interests they dictate all terms of use.

Not that I don't worry about too much personal data getting out onto the web, but what harm do you really think Google can do with your search history and data about who calls you? As long as google doesn't know my SSN, my bank info, my passwords or my address, I'm really not terribly worried. Hell, most people give up more sensitive info freely to Facebook than they do in searches.

I find this hard to believe. Unless you are complaining about at&t's service (which everyone agrees has been poor in some areas), this just sounds like angry hyperboly to me. I find it easy to dial, answer, use the phone book... Voice quality is good. Visual voicemail is fantastic... Honestly, my biggest problem is that it is uncomfortable to hold between my ear and shoulder while I'm doing the dishes.
The iPhone is by far the best phone I have had bar none. Add on all the extras (apps, iPod, video, Internet, camera, games, and on-screen keyboard...) and there is no purchase since my first PowerBook in 1991 that I have been happier with. I couldn't say that if I didn't like the phone part.

Is it just me or am I the only one who doesn't see the duplication in the Google Voice application with anything Apple nor AT&T offer on the iPhone?

And if they completely screw it up by driving away the developers and creating bad press for themsevles it will be their fault...outside the Mac community that is.

Oh, i think it is obvious people are still confused. Some people actually think it means that somehow, Google's app could remove core Apple functions...which of course is insane, given the Apple installer would not allow this. Others simply hide behind feigned ignorance and say we don't know what Apple meant...which of course we do.


You say subvert, I say offer an alternative. Choice is good. I like choice.


I suppose, for a weak, fearful company, sure. For a company built on innovation and competition, it comes off as petty, fearful and sort of pathetic. I'd rather see Apple compete and win than to see them turn into a paranoid nouveau Microsoft.


Speaking of paranoid.

You and John B. have said in the past that Google grabs our info without consent when using services like GV...no one has back this up in anyway though, so I will take that for what it is worth.

And if they don't?

And if my mother had wheels I'd be a wagon.

If this, if that, etc.

So far it's looking pretty good for Apple, despite GV. As we were devoting pages and pages to discussing it, the average user hardly noticed, and it's doutful they'd even care if they did. In fact, it's looking very, very rosy for Apple. Developers are still flocking to the iPhone and it looks like there's no end in sight. Demand for the iPhone is ever-increasing (even despite AT&T), and as long as it is, developers will not only stay, but many more will come aboard. Apple is on track to sell a record number of iPhones next quarter, and as they expand to more carriers, Apple will only widen its share. The Apple of 2009 is waaay too smart and in touch to screw this up. Apple's business is taking things that are "screwed up" and making them insanely profitable. No one in the industry realized smartphones were broken until Appe stepped in to fix them.

iPhone. iPhone. iPhone. That's what it's all about. We've got another iPod phenomenon.

VVM, Dialer, and SMS are the three most obvious 'duplications'.

But, Apple has allowed other apps that also offer alternatives to these functions. Perhaps Google's implementation is just that much better, or their addition services through these functions are so compelling that it scares Apple.

No, it's a bad analogy because API's doesn't allow more than making calls. So I'm still waitingo how GV (or Skype) can be a treat to carriers networks

And how can google ban Safari from being developed or distributed?

Yeah, Apple can reject this app for good and the world isn't going to end. In fact, most iPhone users probably would never notice or care. No one is saying otherwise from what I can see, and anyone who is, is wrong. That still doesn't justify why Apple would go out of it's way to piss off their customers. Unless you are a complete monopoly, it doesn't pay to unnecessarily piss off even a fraction of your customers, especially when the alternative has no down side for you or any of your customers. The same people that would never notice or care that a GV app wasn't available wouldn't notice or care if one was available. The people that want it are that much more satisfied with their iPhone purchase, and it costs Apple not one red cent.

Clearly it's Google's intent to undermine Windows, Mac OS, iPhone OS and ever other platform out there as a platform where people will store information rather than with Google. Everything they do is to that end.

And, I do not believe I have ever said anything about, "Google [grabbing your] info without consent". What I said here is that if you have my personal information -- phone number, email address, street address, company I work for, job title, etc., etc. -- in your Contacts and you put the information from your Contacts on Google's servers, you have given Google my personal information without my consent.

Well, when the opinion stated has so many hole, people will reply. let's look at your original post:

How would google feel about Safari on Android? Good I guess. More apps=good, for one. And they already use webkit for the native browser.

Google having the right to invade every piece of tech you own? How exactly are they doing this? If you mean by offering you the choice to install an app or use their service...well, damn how rude of them. That is down right nefarious...

And if we want GV on the iPhone? I guess we could discuss our disappointment with them not allowing it on the iPhone. Not everyone that is a fan of Apple gives up their brain at the door and assumes everything the do is right.

Then blame me, not google. If I use MacOSX mail.app to email your contact info to someone at Microsoft, would you blame Apple, because I used their app, or MS for receiving the info? Or would you blame my ISP for transmitting said data?

Perhaps you might consider blaming the person that released your info instead.

Blocking GV App doesn't prevent this happening in the least. If I choose to give such data to Google or Apple or anyone else, that is my choice and my fault.

Can't say that I'm surprised by all of this. Apple is like an evil dictator.

Well, in my original post, I indicated that you were nuts for giving them your personal information, but that I was not happy with their practices of dangling bits of tech candy in front of the weak minded to also get my information, without my consent.

Your name is great!!!

Empty my chamber pot, Gwydion!! Sweep the floor, Gwydion!! hahaha

I was waiting for somebody to post Apple's response to the FCC. Thanks.

I refer to the statement " disabling Apples Visual Voicemail."

Disabling ?!? What a wrong choice of word. If everybody I know only has my GV number and calls me with that number, than GV is capturing my voice mails. When GV calls me (my iPhone) and I don't answer, VVM is recording it as a voice mail. I would not have "disabled" Visual VM, I only decided not to use it for some of my calls. Apple is starting to sound like Microsoft, twisting and turning words, hoping that whoever reads their response doesn't know all the details. I'm so sad to see this happening.

BTW: Everybody seems to like GV features and wants to have them. GV is a carrier tool - meaning it only really shines when it is used by a carrier (controlling in and out-bound calls). Google has control of in-bound since they give us a new number.
What if ATT would offer these features??
These features are available for decades. Just google "one number services" or "myonenumber".
Then again, none of the carriers has "Smart" as their first name.

Line 2 got approved and it looks just like GV Mobile! Skype also looks similar and it is approved. *Edit* I just noticed you posted a Skype photo.

However, I can say that Apple sucks big (@(% for this move. Case Closed is right.

So let me state this differently.

If some calls my home phone which is forwarded to my iPhone but my home voice mail takes the message am I bypassing VVM?

If some one calls my GoogleVoice number which is forwarded to my iPhone but GVM takes the message am I bypassing VVM?

Now if anyone answers no to the first and yes to the second your brain dead. There is ABSOLUTELY, CATEGORICALLY and WITHOUT QUESTION no difference between the two. Neither of then bypasses the iPhones VVM.

Case Closed! Apple is WRONG!


I will, Case Closed!

Apple is staying true to its "user experience first" policy that has been in effect for years, and their "we give you what we like and you can come and play" policy. This all ties into it. You might think it's getting to extremes now, but that's the same reason we choose Apple in the first place.

You can blame the consumer. They're all flocking to the iPhone in droves. And there's a lot more to come. No real Android presence. No real WinMo presence. Pre is in the bag. RIM is in the bag. Symbian is bleeding. iPhone is the clear choice.

You can blame the developers, too. They aint leavin. And there's a lot more on the way.

So who's right after all? The complainers on this thread? Or those that continue to help make the iPhone platform what it is, regardless of GV?

Seems like a tough call all around.

NO!

Apple isn't saying that Google is implementing a UI element that serves as a keypad, but that the GV app actually bypasses Apple's own cellular connection dialer. Skype and similar place a "call" over WiFi. They specifically don't dial and transmit a cellular voice call in their own app. What GV was doing is bypassing the native dialer, which is THE CORE FUNCTION OF THE iPHONE!.

I'd love to have GV available as a native app, but I can see where Apple doesn't like google bypassing the most important core function of the phone, the ability to place cellular calls.

Then allow GV Mobile and GV by Google and others to only make it available via WIFI. But Apple will not!!! So Apple is two faced ball suckers for this.

Google does not do it's own transmission. It always uses the cell voice network. It does however call you back when you make calls through it's dialer. The only time that's useful is when making International calls. If you calling within the states there is NO advantage in using the GV dialer.

Now Apple and AT&T may not like you making International call bypassing them but they have no reason to complain since you could always use a calling card or 800 calling service to place your International calls.

As much as I like Apple they really need to back off on this one. The bad press is costing them more than just approving GV.

Dude, don't bother. Tulkas has made up his mind and all the logic in the world isn't going to change it. At some point, Google stopped being the "do no evil" internet darling and started acting like an advertising giant, and advertising giants covet contact info.

No, this is a misunderstanding of google voice as a service and app.

The app, or webapp or webpage all initiate a call to your phone and a call to number you are calling. It doesn't make any call from your phone...

I'd rather make up my mind than just making shit up. Posters that do that are worthless. Don't you agree?