or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple fires back at Google over Voice app rejection claim
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple fires back at Google over Voice app rejection claim

post #1 of 200
Thread Starter 
Hours after Google's letter to the FCC was published in its entirety, Apple has directly responded to the claim that it has formally rejected the Google Voice application from the iPhone App Store.

In a note to Silicon Valley Insider, an Apple representative Friday reiterated what the company said in its own letter to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in August: That it has not rejected the application, but it has not accepted it either.

"We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter," the Apple rep reportedly said. "Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google.

Both Google and Apple sent letters to the FCC last month, after the commission began inquiry into the Google Voice situation. Apple retains complete control over the iPhone and iPod touch App Store, and has not approved Google Voice for download.

When Google's letter was first revealed, it was heavily redacted, concealing specific details and preventing the public from reading the true nature of the exchange between it and Apple. But after receiving numerous Freedom of Information Act requests -- and after Apple published its own letter in its entirety -- Google opted to ask the FCC to publish the document un-redacted. It was released Friday.

In that document, Google alleged that Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, personally told the company that the Google Voice telephony application was outright "rejected" from the App Store.

Friday's response from Apple in a prompt fashion is unique for the Cupertino, Calif., company, which rarely speaks out publicly on such matters.

Also a part of the FCC investigation is AT&T, who, in their own letter, denied any part in the Google Voice situation. AT&T said that Apple has complete control over the App Store, with a few contractual exceptions that deal with network bandwidth issues. Apple has supported AT&T's claims.
post #2 of 200
Somebody's fudging the truth. It sounds to me like it's Apple.
I got nothin'.
Reply
I got nothin'.
Reply
post #3 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrifle View Post

Somebody's fudging the truth. It sounds to me like it's Apple.

I don't understand Apples real motivation in all of this, at all.
post #4 of 200
WAR- What is it good for? Absolutely nuttin!
post #5 of 200
If it hasn't been accepted, then it's been rejected. It seems pretty black and white. Fudging the obvious by saying it is neither accepted nor rejected is just baloney.
post #6 of 200
Oh snap!
post #7 of 200
Nerd Corporation Fight!

Break out the PR lackeys and the lawyers. And the "viral videos".

- Jasen.
post #8 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrifle View Post

Somebody's fudging the truth. It sounds to me like it's Apple.

I am inclined to assume the same about fudging but I am wondering if there is a clause in AT&T's contract with Apple that no application that would utilize VOIP in a manner as to disrupt the AT&T's network based on the quote. "AT&T said that Apple has complete control over the App Store, with a few contractual exceptions that deal with network bandwidth issues."

I assume AT&T's network can not maintain stability with voice calls and data rates that are being inflicted on it not only by the iPhone but with all smart phones. The iPhone seems the be the one demanding the most bandwidth because of the sheer number of subscribers. Someone might know the estimated number of them sold in the US and then add in all the other smart phones to see what type of bandwidth that might be as a whole.

My 2 cents... Have a good day...
post #9 of 200
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #10 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualie View Post

If it hasn't been accepted, then it's been rejected. It seems pretty black and white. Fudging the obvious by saying it is neither accepted nor rejected is just baloney.

You don't know much about logic or argument do you?

It's patently obvious that there can be many things in-between "were 100% okay with this" and "no we won't host this app in the store." The very fact that all the rejections we know about so far point to specific features or reasons app were considered unacceptable indicates that Apple is usually open to negotiation.

In this particular case, they've even already indicated that they would probably accept a web-based version of the same thing, and that the issue is not VoIP per se.
post #11 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualie View Post

If it hasn't been accepted, then it's been rejected. It seems pretty black and white. Fudging the obvious by saying it is neither accepted nor rejected is just baloney.

Yup. Apple's playing a game of morally dubious semantics, here. "Not accepted" in their fudgy, by-the-letter interpetation is the same thing as "it hasn't been rejected." The question then becomes did Phil say "rejected" on the phone, or not. Google thinks/believes/claims he did, Apple hasn't yet said. The bigger the company, the slipperier the language gets, eh?
"I tried to get a tattoo once but passed out. It wasn't wetting my arm that bothered me, I just couldn't press firmly for 30 seconds."
Reply
"I tried to get a tattoo once but passed out. It wasn't wetting my arm that bothered me, I just couldn't press firmly for 30 seconds."
Reply
post #12 of 200
I don't understand why Apple keeps making the distinction between rejected and 'not accepted'. If you 'review' something indefinitely, it might as well be rejected.

Quote:

Wow, that's pretty heavy. I wonder how the carriers are going to react to that. Probably try to raise their rates or something. I wonder too if this would clear the way for a fully-fledged over-network version of Skype...

EDIT: Upon a more thorough reading, it would appear Apple would still potentially have the right to reject these apps, although it also suggests the FCC may have the right with this law to force cellphone makers to allow these type of apps. I doubt that would happen, but this is an interesting turn of events nonetheless. I figured the FCC would puss out over the whole issue to be honest.
post #13 of 200
Quote:

This ruling wouldn't actually change the basis of Apple's problems with the Google Voice app.

Just Sayin.
post #14 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter," the Apple rep reportedly said.

Is it just me, or is this a completely unnecessary statement? We've already read Apple's letter to the FCC, so we already know that Apple disagrees. Moreover, this just seems to justify Google's initial decision to black-out their response.

I'd say Apple's behavior here is childish, but between this, Kanye West, and congressman Joe Wilson... maybe my expectations for the human race in general are just too high.
post #15 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyJJ View Post

Yup. Apple's playing a game of morally dubious semantics, here. "Not accepted" in their fudgy, by-the-letter interpetation is the same thing as "it hasn't been rejected." The question then becomes did Phil say "rejected" on the phone, or not. Google thinks/believes/claims he did, Apple hasn't yet said. The bigger the company, the slipperier the language gets, eh?

Agreed. Like the legal difference between pleading 'guilty' and pleading 'nolo contendere'. It's an intangible difference in a very tangible world.
post #16 of 200
Apple says "it appears to alter the iPhones distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhones core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail".

Google says, "the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representative indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality."

Apple sees user interface, Google sees functionality. See the difference? If I replaced Google's use of the word functionality with features do you get it then. The age old misunderstanding, "my music player has more features than an iPod", "my mobile has had copy and paste for decades" etc. This is so typical, tech nerds misunderstand, Google say they know what Apple believed but in truth they just don't get it.

User interface is how humans interact with the world, people and indeed everything around them. Still most humans can't see it. It's incredible, people do it every hour of every day and most still don't understand.
post #17 of 200
Quote:

I am torn on this. Much as I too would like everything internet-related to be allowed on all networks, there will be two definite consequences we should be prepared for, if this ruling were to pass: (i) Operators will cut back on capex (why would they take the risk and invest so that someone else can make the profits by underselling their core services?), thereby making the pipes slower and more erratic; and (ii) They will have to raise prices on non-voice services to compensate.
post #18 of 200
None of this makes any sense. What exactly is Apple's real motivation here?

If they don't want to allow GV on the iPhone, just come out and say so. Apple's just insulting their customers' intelligence, and perhaps worse the FCC, but playing semantics. Not approving the app, rejecting the app, bottom line is that the app is unavailable to customers.

Also, what about the previous third-party GV apps that were approved and then pulled from the app store? Why were they pulled?

Whatever the outcome of all this, I can't help but think that the Google/Apple relationship may take a serious hit. Stay tuned...
post #19 of 200
This has got to be the dumbest fight between companies that I have seen. Most of the fault lies with Apple on this one. Of course the people who are the losers are those of us with iPhones and Google Voice accounts, like myself.

Thankfully Google did a good job with Google Voice and using mobile Safari with the website works very well. Still Apple needs to quit whining and just release the app to the App store. The customers should not suffer because Apple and Google are acting stupid.
post #20 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

This ruling wouldn't actually change the basis of Apple's problems with the Google Voice app.

Just Sayin.

It doesn't matter what Apple's claims are. Apple is blocking Google's services on the net. BTW, there are other "app dialers" that duplicated Apples own, so their claims are dishonest and their motives transparent.
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #21 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

This ruling wouldn't actually change the basis of Apple's problems with the Google Voice app.

Just Sayin.

Nah, you're just speculatin'.
post #22 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiroger View Post

None of this makes any sense. What exactly is Apple's real motivation here?

If they don't want to allow GV on the iPhone, just come out and say so. Apple's just insulting their customers' intelligence, and perhaps worse the FCC, but playing semantics. Not approving the app, rejecting the app, bottom line is that the app is unavailable to customers.

Also, what about the previous third-party GV apps that were approved and then pulled from the app store? Why were they pulled?

Whatever the outcome of all this, I can't help but think that the Google/Apple relationship may take a serious hit. Stay tuned...

I think Apple will eventually approve Google Voice, with all this attention it would be hard not to. If Apple claims that the app has not been rejected, they don't have to admit to doing a complete 180 when they approve it. They can simply state that they have reviewed it and google revised it until Apple was comfortable with the application.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #23 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualie View Post

If it hasn't been accepted, then it's been rejected. It seems pretty black and white. Fudging the obvious by saying it is neither accepted nor rejected is just baloney.

You can't possibly be serious.

All organization or bureaucracies have a concept of "pending". Meaning, something hasn't been completed, decided, or categorized yet.

If you're claiming that Apple is lying, just say so. While Apple's claim of pending might be dishonest, a stalling tactic, or a ruse... The concept of pending still exists. Claiming otherwise "is just baloney."
post #24 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post

Apple says "it appears to alter the iPhones distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhones core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail".

Google says, "the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representative indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality."

Apple sees user interface, Google sees functionality. See the difference? If I replaced Google's use of the word functionality with features do you get it then. The age old misunderstanding, "my music player has more features than an iPod", "my mobile has had copy and paste for decades" etc. This is so typical, tech nerds misunderstand, Google say they know what Apple believed but in truth they just don't get it.

User interface is how humans interact with the world, people and indeed everything around them. Still most humans can't see it. It's incredible, people do it every hour of every day and most still don't understand.

I get it. But then again I buy Apple. Because they get it
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #25 of 200
i'm sure seth can clear all this up.
post #26 of 200
FXCK IT APPLE!

If you have not rejected, then why not APPROVED it?!

All this crap, just tells me you and FXCKING AT&T are behind this pile of BS!

APPROVE IT, and end of discussion...

DAMN IT!
post #27 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post


FCC to approve Google Voice!!
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...l?hpid=topnews

Can you read?
post #28 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Nah, you're just speculatin'.

Nope.
the ruling applies to VoIP apps and the network owners restricting those apps as well as tethering etc. Read it.

If Apple sticks to it's statement about the reasons that the app was "not yet accepted" then this ruling simply doesn't apply. Apple already allows VoIP on the iPhone, but the contract with AT&T disallows use of VoIP on their network. This ruling would remove AT&T's restriction, but have nothing to do with the reasons Apple says were involved in not approving the Google Voice app.

In other words, it would "free up" the VoIP apps already on the phone. This would more likely lead to Google changing the implementation of Google Voice the way Apple says they want them to, so as to better compete with those apps. It's more likely a "win" for Apple than for anyone else.
post #29 of 200
Who cares? Maybe it's a crap app?
post #30 of 200
It seems to me that the FCC is talking about transmitted data even though the news story says "applications". The FCC could require carriers to pass all traffic. However, I don't _think_ they have jurisdiction over which software can or cannot be sold on a "website".
post #31 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post

Who cares? Maybe it's a crap app?

If the dispute was the quality of the app, it would have been rejected by now. This is about something else. Either Apple not wanting to fess up that they are doing this to protect AT&T or they are just pissing in Google's cornflakes in response to Android/Google OS or a million other things. Hell maybe Sergei said Steve's mom wears army boots. Who knows at this point.
post #32 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

It doesn't matter what Apple's claims are. Apple is blocking Google's services on the net. BTW, there are other "app dialers" that duplicated Apples own, so their claims are dishonest and their motives transparent.

No. You're reading this ruling wrong and you didn't read (or maybe just don't agree with?), Apple's stated opinion on Google voice.

According to their statement, Apple is actually okay with Google Voice but not the current implementation. This ruling wouldn't apply, because Apple isn't blocking Google from the network, only blocking them from doing that in a particular way. That's a big difference.

They are presumably okay with them doing it as a web app, or even as a native one if it doesn't violate the user guidelines. They also allow other VoIP apps so it's hard to argue that Apple is blocking these kinds of services as a matter of policy hidden or otherwise.

I'm not saying I believe them or that they are saints or anything, but legally and logically, they would not be affected by this ruling at all AFAICS.
post #33 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualie View Post

If it hasn't been accepted, then it's been rejected. It seems pretty black and white. Fudging the obvious by saying it is neither accepted nor rejected is just baloney.

No it's not.
Apps are not accepted or rejected immediately, the second one is sent to Apple.
post #34 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualie View Post

If it hasn't been accepted, then it's been rejected. It seems pretty black and white. Fudging the obvious by saying it is neither accepted nor rejected is just baloney.

You go to the airport and you see that your flight has not arrived as scheduled. So I gather you would say it 'crashed'.
post #35 of 200
Since this news came out on a Friday from both sides, it's a let's sweep it under the rug story. If it was war, Google would've announced it on a Monday or Tuesday.

Whatever Google had redacted in its FCC memo was sure to eventually leak and become public, so Google controlled any possible surprise by just announcing it on a Friday. And Apple responded with an "I'm sorry Google but you misinterpreted our actions", which Google already knew by reading Apple's FCC memo. So both sides just want it to go away.
"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 #36 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualie View Post

If it hasn't been accepted, then it's been rejected. It seems pretty black and white. Fudging the obvious by saying it is neither accepted nor rejected is just baloney.

Other developers have also said that they've been left in the black hole of apps - no communication of rejection but also no appearance in the App Store. I'm not condoning Apple's behavior, but it seems to have happened more than just this one time.
"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 #37 of 200
Is anybody genuinely surprised by this?
post #38 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Can you read?

Is that all you have to contribute? Explain why you disagree *****!
Essentially, the guidelines will "prevent wireless companies from blocking internet applications and prevent them from discriminating (or acting as gatekeepers) [against] web content and services."
Anyone that thinks Apple would not just give a bald faced lie about their motives is living in lala land. There are plenty of Apps that currently change the "user experience" and replace the native dialer, etc. Then they give this school boy answer like, "We didn't reject it" - then they go on to explain why they rejected it. Based on their answer, GV violates every stipulation, so why would they still be "studying it"? That just BS.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/17226...n_the_end.html
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #39 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

If you're claiming that Apple is lying, just say so. While Apple's claim of pending might be dishonest, a stalling tactic, or a ruse... The concept of pending still exists. Claiming otherwise "is just baloney."

Okay. I'll say it. I think Apple is lying. They are not above lying to someone. Steve Jobs is a salesman, not a saint. His loyalties, contrary to what most here think, are to the shareholders, the current Mrs. Jobs, and his kids. Not necessarily in that order. He would screw over everyone in this forum (lie) if it would sell more products and give him an advantage.
post #40 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

You don't know much about logic or argument do you?

It's patently obvious that there can be many things in-between "were 100% okay with this" and "no we won't host this app in the store." The very fact that all the rejections we know about so far point to specific features or reasons app were considered unacceptable indicates that Apple is usually open to negotiation.

In this particular case, they've even already indicated that they would probably accept a web-based version of the same thing, and that the issue is not VoIP per se.

They really have no choice about accepting a web version so it's quite magnaminous of them to say the would "probably accept" one. Lol.

They want to have it both ways, We'll keep it out but don't want to be held accountable to our behavior by saying it's under review. It's complete nonsense and it does Apple no good when the fan boys provide excuses for this type of behavior.

Eventually this type of dishonesty with a splash of megalomania will be their downfall which will be bad for all us. You want to return to the days of the late 80's to late 90's when Apple was not a real player?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple fires back at Google over Voice app rejection claim