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 - Page 4

post #121 of 200
Uh oh, anonymous got his funny clever hat on again.


I guess if anyone doesn't see every move that google makes is just a pawn or sheep. No, I take it back that isn't clever, it is stupid.

Now, those that assume everything Apple does is right, only because it is Apple....they are worse than pawns or sheep....they are brain dead.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #122 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Apple can decide who they let on the iPhone - they created it. Why should Google get better treatment than every else? Because they're bigger?

no...but that might be why they are not being treated like everyone else...that's the point. Others have similar apps approved and released. Even some GV third party apps made it...

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #123 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

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.

That makes sense.

Let's see what happens.
post #124 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Looks a lot to me as though you are fabricating to make a point, putting words in my mouth, and trying to cover it up. I do agree, though, that your assertions are worthless, however, I will avoid casting aspersions on your character.

See, that;s the funny thing. There is no ned to make stuff up in this case. Your posts and Mac Tripper and John B. all speak for themselves.

The other funny thing is that with all the paranoia about Google and their apparent attempts to use their services to create the New World Order, not one of you has put together a coherent argument as to how that should affect Apple's business decisions regarding the Google Voice App.

You hate Google? Fine. You think they are out to get you? OK. They are the new boogie man? Great. How should these personal beliefs affect Apple's business decisions? Simple. They shouldn't. Apple did mention user data as one of their reasons, but it was left to the end, more of an after thought. Apparently, all they want is Google's guarantee to use it appropriately. Apple themselves built in syncing all contacts from Snow Leopard to Google, so they obviously do not share the paranoia of some of the Righteous Defenders here.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #125 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Why?

We aren't a socialist state where private enterprise in our free market system is dictated to by our Government to the same degree that the USA seems to be heading.

Your FCC better not screw up on forcing companies to accept "Internet based" applications on their devices or spammers and spyware makers will have a field day.

If you look at the comments I was replying to, the poster was saying ALL iPhone users should have this App, so if Apple is forced to allow it to iPhone users then shouldn't Google be forced to provide the service to ALL iPhone users.

OK. I'll be more blunt. Nobody said that all iPhone users should have this app. People say that iPhone users should be able to install this app, if they choose. Big difference. Second, your assertion that if Apple is forced to approve this app that the FCC should force Google to provide the service to all iPhone users is just plain silly.

The FCC has no jurisdiction outside the US and frankly they don't care what Google does in Australia or anywhere else. If you want Google to be forced to provide the service in Australia, then how about you give your feedback to Google and to your representatives? Use your totally free Australian market to get Google to see the revenue opportunity they are ignoring by not offering GV in Australia. There are many apps that are dependent on an underlying service that is not available in a particular country. As far as I know, DirectTV is not available outside the US. Should they be forced to offer their service to everyone on the planet with a TV because they have an app available in the App Store?

Your statement that the US is heading towards becoming a Socialist state is laughable.

Lastly, your knowledge of the proposed net neutrality rules in the US is nil. The rules that will be proposed on Monday have no effect on wireless networks. Google wants them to, but the FCC is proposing nothing that effects wireless carriers in the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...trality&st=cse
post #126 of 200
Google wants it's App forced on Apple's device by having the FCC, as a Government body representing the US government to step in.

Government (as in representing the people) controlling decisions made by free enterprises in a free market system equals socialism, after all as a consumer, you can buy a phone with a platform that supports this application, that is called competition.

That is where this game should be played, not with government intervention but in the marketplace.

So why should the US Government make decisions that should be the right of companies to make, it could set a dangerous precedent, who will decide which Apps should be forced on Apple in future?

What if spammers or spyware makers want to put Apps in the App store, will they be able to have the same rights as Google and be able to cry foul if their Apps are rejected, asked to be rewritten and resubmitted or whatever APPLE as the owner of the platform requires to allow an App into their store.

As to why Google probably won't offer this service in Australia.

We don't pay for incoming calls so Google would have to pay carrier termination fees, not the end user as is the case in the US.

Maybe they can support it by advertising like their other "free" services so who knows.

We also don't have long distance on our mobile networks there are only National and International calls, roaming really only exists when travelling overseas apart from a few rare exceptions.

btw how many Verizon phone's have GV Apps?

Maybe if an iPhone on AT&T doesn't suit your needs you should consider something else which does, as a consumer in a free market economy it is your decision to make, not the governments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slu View Post

OK. I'll be more blunt. Nobody said that all iPhone users should have this app. People say that iPhone users should be able to install this app, if they choose. Big difference. Second, your assertion that if Apple is forced to approve this app that the FCC should force Google to provide the service to all iPhone users is just plain silly.

The FCC has no jurisdiction outside the US and frankly they don't care what Google does in Australia or anywhere else. If you want Google to be forced to provide the service in Australia, then how about you give your feedback to Google and to your representatives? Use your totally free Australian market to get Google to see the revenue opportunity they are ignoring by not offering GV in Australia. There are many apps that are dependent on an underlying service that is not available in a particular country. As far as I know, DirectTV is not available outside the US. Should they be forced to offer their service to everyone on the planet with a TV because they have an app available in the App Store?

Your statement that the US is heading towards becoming a Socialist state is laughable.

Lastly, your knowledge of the proposed net neutrality rules in the US is nil. The rules that will be proposed on Monday have no effect on wireless networks. Google wants them to, but the FCC is proposing nothing that effects wireless carriers in the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...trality&st=cse
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #127 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Google wants it's App forced on Apple's device by having the FCC, as a Government body representing the US government to step in.

Government (as in representing the people) controlling decisions made by free enterprises in a free market system equals socialism, after all as a consumer, you can buy a phone with a platform that supports this application, that is called competition.

That is where this game should be played, not with government intervention but in the marketplace.

So why should the US Government make decisions that should be the right of companies to make, it could set a dangerous precedent, who will decide which Apps should be forced on Apple in future?

What if spammers or spyware makers want to put Apps in the App store, will they be able to have the same rights as Google and be able to cry foul if their Apps are rejected, asked to be rewritten and resubmitted or whatever APPLE as the owner of the platform requires to allow an App into their store.

As to why Google probably won't offer this service in Australia.

We don't pay for incoming calls so Google would have to pay carrier termination fees, not the end user as is the case in the US.

Maybe they can support it by advertising like their other "free" services so who knows.

We also don't have long distance on our mobile networks there are only National and International calls, roaming really only exists when travelling overseas apart from a few rare exceptions.

btw how many Verizon phone's have GV Apps?

Maybe if an iPhone on AT&T doesn't suit your needs you should consider something else which does, as a consumer in a free market economy it is your decision to make, not the governments.

1. You need to look up the word socialism as it does not mean what you think it means: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism

2. I don't really care about the GV app, per se. I have a problem with the App Store approval process. I bought the phone and as long as the app is not malicious I should be able to install any app I want on it. Just like I can on my Mac. What if spyware or spammers want to put apps on the internet for OS X? Do you think if malware came out for the iPhone nobody would know or try to prevent it if the platform was more open?

Apple is within their legal right to exclude any app for any reason they want. That does not mean I have to like it or that it is good for the public at large. Apple is acting in what they think is in the best interests of their shareholders. The entire reason regulation exists is because what is in the best interests of the shareholders of a particular company may not be in the best interests of the public at large. This does not equal socialism. In fact in works the same way in your country. You are correct in that when my contract is up I will be investigating alternatives to the iPhone to see if I should go somewhere else. I will vote with my wallet. But I have also sent feedback to Apple and I hope that they see it fit to change their minds. Like they did about matte screen and firewire ports on 13.3 inch laptops. Apple has the right to do what they want I have the right to publicly disagree with their policy.

3. Google did not call the FCC and say "Force our app on the iPhone". The FCC decided to investigate to see if AT&T had any role in the rejection. The reason this is a key distinction is because AT&T operates on the public airwaves via a license they purchased from the US government. In the US, the FCC has the right to regulate the public airwaves to ensure they are used for the good of the public. If AT&T had no role in the rejection, which I don't think they did since you can get a GV app for a Blackberry on AT&T, then the FCC has no authority in the matter.

4. I don't care about Google Voice in Australia or why it might not be there. I don't really care about Google Voice. The main reason I even responded to you in the first place was to try to illustrate how silly your statement that the if the FCC forces Apple to put the GV app in the App store that they should also force Google to offer the Google Voice Service to everyone on the planet with an iPhone. You keep ignoring these parts of my responses.
post #128 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Google wants it's App forced on Apple's device by having the FCC, as a Government body representing the US government to step in.

Government (as in representing the people) controlling decisions made by free enterprises in a free market system equals socialism, after all as a consumer, you can buy a phone with a platform that supports this application, that is called competition.

That is where this game should be played, not with government intervention but in the marketplace.

So why should the US Government make decisions that should be the right of companies to make, it could set a dangerous precedent, who will decide which Apps should be forced on Apple in future?

What if spammers or spyware makers want to put Apps in the App store, will they be able to have the same rights as Google and be able to cry foul if their Apps are rejected, asked to be rewritten and resubmitted or whatever APPLE as the owner of the platform requires to allow an App into their store.

As to why Google probably won't offer this service in Australia.

We don't pay for incoming calls so Google would have to pay carrier termination fees, not the end user as is the case in the US.

Maybe they can support it by advertising like their other "free" services so who knows.

We also don't have long distance on our mobile networks there are only National and International calls, roaming really only exists when travelling overseas apart from a few rare exceptions.

btw how many Verizon phone's have GV Apps?

Maybe if an iPhone on AT&T doesn't suit your needs you should consider something else which does, as a consumer in a free market economy it is your decision to make, not the governments.

Delusional or fabricated.

No google is not trying to have their app forced on the iPhone. At best you could claim they trying force apple to allow users the choice to install it on their phones that they paid for. The rest if your post is based on your inaccurate premise and holds as much value.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #129 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by steviet02 View Post

I don't understand Apples real motivation in all of this, at all.

their motivation is easy. they don't want to have to provide support for someone using another interface on the phone when it doesn't work.

as for not telling the truth. I haven't seen a validated email or a voice recording of Phil and what he said to Google so it is equally possible they are fudging the truth.

also, was there any prior statement re: what you can and can't do with an app that says that creating an alt interface such as they are saying Google has is a no-no. I recall that Microsoft has recently been extremely clear they won't allow it with WinMo but what about Apple. Because if it is spelled out plainly in the rules and was when Google joined up, they really can't say anything. they might think the rule unfair but so far nothing has been said to disallow Apple legally from making any rule they want.

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.

yes and no. there is "rejected at this time, feel free to fix these issues and resubmit" and "rejected get the F out of here and don't come back"

Apple is claiming it was the former, Google the latter. google is also claiming that Apple has no right to the latter.
post #130 of 200
Just as you ignored the fact that my original post was in reply to someone who said that ALL iPhone owners should have access to this App, using people such as myself as an example as to why this idea is neither possible or desirable.

The FCC should back off and let the free market system decide, to jump in with government interference for the "good of the people" is socialist behaviour.

Moving on if the FCC gains the power to decide what Apple should and could include, who decides which Apps the FCC forces Apple to take?

Based on Google's GV App it looks like the vendor gets to make the decision hence an invasion of spammers and spyware makers, who may possibly seek damages if their software is not approved.

Under the net neutrality rules, will using Spyware blocking software constitute blocking "any application" from using a network.

The FCC should be very careful in how they word their proposed regulations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by slu View Post

...also force Google to offer the Google Voice Service to everyone on the planet with an iPhone. You keep ignoring these parts of my responses.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #131 of 200
So why doesn't Google modify their App so it meets Apples requirements as spelled out by Apple then resubmit it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Delusional or fabricated.

No google is not trying to have their app forced on the iPhone. At best you could claim they trying force apple to allow users the choice to install it on their phones that they paid for. The rest if your post is based on your inaccurate premise and holds as much value.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #132 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by sumitagarwal View Post

No! Apple does not lie!

The iPod Touch doesn't have a camera because it's a gaming console, didn't you know that?! Don't believe anyone who says they had to pull that feature at the last minute!

since you choose to go there.

wrong. Apple at NO point ever said there was going to be a camera in the Touch. They never even said they were thinking about maybe perhaps one day putting a camera in the Touch. That they might have researched it, that they might have built a prototype of that idea is not the same as Phil or anyone else getting up on a stage or releasing a notice that there was going to be a camera in the Touch and then going "we changed our minds" at the event.

so no, they didn't lie. it just turns out that the rumor sites and the so called expert analysts were wrong this time
post #133 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

since you choose to go there.

wrong. Apple at NO point ever said there was going to be a camera in the Touch. They never even said they were thinking about maybe perhaps one day putting a camera in the Touch. That they might have researched it, that they might have built a prototype of that idea is not the same as Phil or anyone else getting up on a stage or releasing a notice that there was going to be a camera in the Touch and then going "we changed our minds" at the event.

so no, they didn't lie. it just turns out that the rumor sites and the so called expert analysts were wrong this time

Right - and you probably believe the blank space in the Touch is just an accident.
post #134 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

since you choose to go there.

wrong. Apple at NO point ever said there was going to be a camera in the Touch. They never even said they were thinking about maybe perhaps one day putting a camera in the Touch. That they might have researched it, that they might have built a prototype of that idea is not the same as Phil or anyone else getting up on a stage or releasing a notice that there was going to be a camera in the Touch and then going "we changed our minds" at the event.

so no, they didn't lie. it just turns out that the rumor sites and the so called expert analysts were wrong this time

Right - and you probably believe the blank space in the Touch is just happenstance.
post #135 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

yes and no. there is "rejected at this time, feel free to fix these issues and resubmit" and "rejected get the F out of here and don't come back"

How about, "we have received it and are reviewing it still. It is neither accepted or rejected".
Quote:
Apple is claiming it was the former

No they are not.
Apple Answers FCC Questions
"Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. "
post #136 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Just as you ignored the fact that my original post was in reply to someone who said that ALL iPhone owners should have access to this App, using people such as myself as an example as to why this idea is neither possible or desirable.

The FCC should back off and let the free market system decide, to jump in with government interference for the "good of the people" is socialist behaviour.

Moving on if the FCC gains the power to decide what Apple should and could include, who decides which Apps the FCC forces Apple to take?

Based on Google's GV App it looks like the vendor gets to make the decision hence an invasion of spammers and spyware makers, who may possibly seek damages if their software is not approved.

Under the net neutrality rules, will using Spyware blocking software constitute blocking "any application" from using a network.

The FCC should be very careful in how they word their proposed regulations.

So when I said this, i wasn't addressing your original "point"?

Quote:
Nobody said that all iPhone users should have this app. People say that iPhone users should be able to install this app, if they choose. Big difference. Second, your assertion that if Apple is forced to approve this app that the FCC should force Google to provide the service to all iPhone users is just plain silly.

And your "point" is just semantics anyway. There are plenty of country specific apps. Even if someone did say that ALL iPhone owners should have access to this app, you don't think it is implied that they meant all iPhone owners who have access to Google Voice should have access to the app? You are arguing minutia. And if if the app was available worldwide, how would that be undesirable or detrimental to for you? See my previous DirectTV app example.

Again, you need learn what socialism means. Government regulation is not socialism. I'll post the link again: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism

Are are really asking a "who polices the police" question? Seriously? If you want to know who the FCC answers to in the US, there is a wealth of information available on the internet that can explain it to you.

Again, you need to read what net neutrality means in the US. I'll break it down for you. Basically, it means that an ISP cannot prioritize certain traffic on their network over other traffic. So the cable company that also provides internet access cannot slow down streaming video in favor of their cable TV traffic. They cannot slow down Skype traffic is favor of their own VOIP solution. Basically, ISPs must treat all network traffic equally. That is it. It does not mean anyone can put anything they want on your network. It is not like leaving the door to your house open and throwing your locks away, which is how you are characterizing it. You can and will get kicked off of most ISPs in the US today if you are a spammer or are breaking other laws (i.e. fraud).

My issue is with Apple and the App Store approval process. It is my phone and I should be able to install whatever I want on it, just like I can on my Mac. Period.
post #137 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

this should help you get up to speed:

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=google+voice

Very clever, thanks for confirming that it truly doesn't do anything I can't already do with my cell-phone
post #138 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

phone number consolidation. Free long distance. free voice mail. Voice mail transcription.

All features available to users of the iPhone, with or without the native App. Apple banning it in no way prevents iPhone users from using the service. The app would have simply made it more convenient to use the service.

Thank you: As I understood it when I looked at the GV website: My t-mobile phone already has my number(s) consolidated, free long distance, I can forward calls from my (VoIP) work phone and have free voicemail. Oh: I can also assign different ring tones to work or personal callers ... anything important I missed?

Funny enough: This reminds me of the strange fact that only with the appearance of "apps" on the iPhone some people are recognizing available software tools, some of which have been available for a long time on Windows Mobile e.g. (there, I said the "W" word) ...
post #139 of 200
Can anyone explain the reason why Google auto software updater is not rootkit, since I look over the internet and many people have stated different opinions.

To me it is rootkit and many people who stated in this forum it is not, I am not taking their word for it, since the same people have been ranting about providing facts to our opinions.
post #140 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

Can anyone explain the reason why Google auto software updater is not rootkit, since I look over the internet and many people have stated different opinions.

To me it is rootkit and many people who stated in this forum it is not, I am not taking their word for it, since the same people have been ranting about providing facts to our opinions.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rootkit:

Quote:
rootkit (plural rootkits)

1. (computing) A set of software tools used by a third party after gaining access to a computer system in order to conceal the altering of files, or processes being executed by the third party without the user's knowledge.

The reason some people say it is and some people say it isn't a rootkit is because some people believe that the Google Earth (important distinction) Auto Update program does more than Google claims it does and some don't.

If you believe the program sends more personal information back to Google than the Terms of Service state they do, then you would call it a rootkit.
post #141 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So why doesn't Google modify their App so it meets Apples requirements as spelled out by Apple then resubmit it?

Nice dodge but your question does nothing to clarify you ridiculous assertion that google is asking the FCC to force GV onto the iPhone.

To your question...maybe google feels that would cripple the app and service.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #142 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by slu View Post

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rootkit:



The reason some people say it is and some people say it isn't a rootkit is because some people believe that the Google Earth (important distinction) Auto Update program does more than Google claims it does and some don't.

If you believe the program sends more personal information back to Google than the Terms of Service state they do, then you would call it a rootkit.

You don't need a rootkit to send personal information back that the program itself is getting and using.

A rootkit is a program that is hidden in the OS itself. Often, it can't be found by normal methods, and can't be removed easily. As the definition says, it's used to alter code in the machine to install it's own code, often to take the machine over, and monitor operations.

I don't see how this would qualify.
post #143 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by slu View Post

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rootkit:



The reason some people say it is and some people say it isn't a rootkit is because some people believe that the Google Earth (important distinction) Auto Update program does more than Google claims it does and some don't.

If you believe the program sends more personal information back to Google than the Terms of Service state they do, then you would call it a rootkit.

Ummm..no, then you might cal it malware.


Root kit, as in root access. You know, as in complete control of your system.


I guess now it makes sense that all these people are calling it a root kit, since they don't understand what the hell that term means.

I could call it a four headed sheep, but that wouldn't make any sense either...nor would it be true. It would just be another lie.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #144 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

Can anyone explain the reason why Google auto software updater is not rootkit, since I look over the internet and many people have stated different opinions.

To me it is rootkit and many people who stated in this forum it is not, I am not taking their word for it, since the same people have been ranting about providing facts to our opinions.

Translation: I don't know what a root kit is, but I would like to accuse Google Earth of being one. Please help me.


Seriously, if you don't understand what you are accusing them of, it is better not to make the accusation.


These are the best arguments against GV on the iPhone. A bunch of paranoid, inaccurate, untruthful claims about Google as a company?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #145 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Ummm..no, then you might cal it malware.


Root kit, as in root access. You know, as in complete control of your system.


I guess now it makes sense that all these people are calling it a root kit, since they don't understand what the hell that term means.

I could call it a four headed sheep, but that wouldn't make any sense either...nor would it be true. It would just be another lie.

I've seen a two headed sheep. I'd love to see one with four.
post #146 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by toes View Post

Thank you: As I understood it when I looked at the GV website: My t-mobile phone already has my number(s) consolidated, free long distance, I can forward calls from my (VoIP) work phone and have free voicemail. Oh: I can also assign different ring tones to work or personal callers ... anything important I missed?

Funny enough: This reminds me of the strange fact that only with the appearance of "apps" on the iPhone some people are recognizing available software tools, some of which have been available for a long time on Windows Mobile e.g. (there, I said the "W" word) ...

Nope, you haven't missed anything. Nothing in GV s unique. Hell, most of it isn't even unique on the iPhone App Store....which makes the non-rejection/rejection of the app so puzzling.

No one here has been able to put together a rational or sane argument as a reason for the app to be denied. They just sort of feel the need to make nonsensical arguments to defend the actions of Apple, because it is Apple. As a long time and somewhat crazed Apple fan myself, it is sort of embarrassing to see Apple fandom reduced to such drivel.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #147 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I've seen a two headed sheep. I'd love to see one with four.

But have you seen the google 4 headed sheep? Those bastards pervert everything they touch...and the sheep are just the beginning. Next they are going to start root kitting cows.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #148 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

But have you seen the google 4 headed sheep? Those bastards pervert everything they touch...and the sheep are just the beginning. Next they are going to start root kitting cows.

But think of all the grass it eats!

Seriously though, Google is as screwed up as any company. But not more than most.

They've come out with that app to leverage Apple's platform for their own benefit. now, thats fine, as far as it goes. I've now read a lot about what it is, how it does what it does, and honestly, I'm still a bit confused. Truthfully, the service Google is offering is not easy to to do from the consumers standpoint. You need another phone number etc. I don;t know how many people would want this anyway, and the service won't really end up being free.

I'm not sure what Apple's concern is though. We can oversimplify on either side, but it's a complex issue.

I know Apple says that AT&T had nothing to do with this, but then they mention the terms of service.

The way that works is that ANYTHING that goes through AT&T's network (other networks have the same terms) can't violate the terms of service. One of those terms is that anything that makes calls can't go over their network if it bypasses their payment schedule.

That's why SKYPE can work with WiFi, but not with EDGE or 3G, for example.

Reading the service details carefully makes me believe that this IS violating that terms of service agreement in some way.

I'd like someone to show exactly why it isn't, if it isn't. For example, the purpose of this service is to do what, exactly?
post #149 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

See, that;s the funny thing. There is no ned to make stuff up in this case. Your posts [...] speak for themselves.

Yes, they do, but your restatement of them is not what they say at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The other funny thing is that with all the paranoia about Google and their apparent attempts to use their services to create the New World Order, not one of you has put together a coherent argument as to how that should affect Apple's business decisions regarding the Google Voice App.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Your self-loathing must be very nearly unbearable.


However, I have repeatedly stated that Google's intent is to undermine Apple's (and Microsoft's) platforms as places where people maintain, and go to for, information, for the purpose of gaining control over that information themselves, and the process of accessing it. Their services trivialize other platforms for the benefit of Google, and to the detriment of Apple (and Microsoft, and individuals' privacy and control of their own information and access to other information) and it is absolutely not in Apple's interest to allow that to happen.

Which is exactly why Apple has a strong interest in not allowing GV on the iPhone as long as it is in a form that undermines, or trivalizes, the iPhone platform, and, thus, threatens Apple's long-term viability and financial health.
post #150 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by slu View Post

1. You need to look up the word socialism as it does not mean what you think it means: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism

Terribly sorry mate, I can't trust a dictionary which can't even spell colour correctly.

http://www.askoxford.com:80/concise_...ialism?view=uk

Socialism according to the Oxford, you know from the country where the language originated, defines Socialism as state ownership OR regulation of private industry such as the people calling for the FCC to adopt a socialist stance and force Apple to bow to regulation and allow the GV App into their store.

Perhaps you should gaolbreak your iPhone or as a consumer chose something that suits your needs, as opposed to expecting a socialist government body to enforce your desires by Government regulation.

P.S. Wanna buy a Che Guevara T-Shirt.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #151 of 200
Absolutely amazing. Just some questions remain. First, can an ordinary phone, just a crappy gadget, provoke revolution in States? Second, why are all those profit fanciers so sure that they still can ride on Apple's back to the same success, to the same money, as pioneering entrepreneurs did?

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #152 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Yes, they do, but your restatement of them is not what they say at all.

No resentment of them. None of them make sense. None of them are worth resenting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post



However, I have repeatedly stated that Google's intent is to undermine Apple's (and Microsoft's) platforms as places where people maintain, and go to for, information, for the purpose of gaining control over that information themselves, and the process of accessing it. Their services trivialize other platforms for the benefit of Google, and to the detriment of Apple (and Microsoft, and individuals' privacy and control of their own information and access to other information) and it is absolutely not in Apple's interest to allow that to happen.

Which is exactly why Apple has a strong interest in not allowing GV on the iPhone as long as it is in a form that undermines, or trivalizes, the iPhone platform, and, thus, threatens Apple's long-term viability and financial health.

1) Your points make no sense, since banning the apps accomplishing nothing except to make using the service less convenient. All the trivializing, control and undermining happens with, or without the app.
2) Apple has partnered with Google, continues to do so and enables users to send wads of data to and from google. Apple obviously does not share your concerns.

Even if you continue to repeat, it doesn't make it rational or true. But please, continue.

Still waiting for a rational argument and not just misleading, confused conjecture. Guess I will have to wait some time.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #153 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But think of all the grass it eats!

Seriously though, Google is as screwed up as any company. But not more than most.

They've come out with that app to leverage Apple's platform for their own benefit. now, thats fine, as far as it goes. I've now read a lot about what it is, how it does what it does, and honestly, I'm still a bit confused. Truthfully, the service Google is offering is not easy to to do from the consumers standpoint. You need another phone number etc. I don;t know how many people would want this anyway, and the service won't really end up being free.

I'm not sure what Apple's concern is though. We can oversimplify on either side, but it's a complex issue.

I know Apple says that AT&T had nothing to do with this, but then they mention the terms of service.

The way that works is that ANYTHING that goes through AT&T's network (other networks have the same terms) can't violate the terms of service. One of those terms is that anything that makes calls can't go over their network if it bypasses their payment schedule.

That's why SKYPE can work with WiFi, but not with EDGE or 3G, for example.

Reading the service details carefully makes me believe that this IS violating that terms of service agreement in some way.

I'd like someone to show exactly why it isn't, if it isn't. For example, the purpose of this service is to do what, exactly?

But, it doesn't by pass the payment schedule. All calls you make or receive through your GV acct on your iPhone still use your calling minutes. At best they avoid the long distance charges. But, you already can choose to use alternative long distance providers or to use calling cards or to use outbound call forwarding services, and they act exactly the same. if they don't violate the TOS in this way and are allowed, then GV doesn't violate them either.

SKYPE and other VOIP aps avoided the voice service of the ATT network entirely. if it was allowed on 3G, then all calls would be over the data and AT&T would be cut out of the voice revenue. This is against the TOS and so SKYPE had to block 3G calling. This was a clear cut violation and so they were right to change their app. It also happens to be why the are involved with the FCC investigation into net neutrality, as they would like to run over the data networks, without restriction, but as they can with your ISP connection. They want the TOS changed so that they are not in violation. Different issue than GV.

Edit: Also, Apple's own response to the the FCC said they welcomed google to do a GV webapp. As far as the calling features, this would duplicate the features of the native app for most intents. In both native and web, AT&T would stand to lose the same potential revenue of their long distance revenue. If the webapp provides the same features, and would therefore be also be in violation of AT&T's terms, if the native app is, then why would Apple encourage this route?

The webapp would lose out on some convenience through loss of direct integration, such as selecting a contact from your address book instead of having to manually enter the number, but this wouldn't make a difference to AT&T. And even this convenience can easily be regained, enabled by Apple themselves. Set you Mac to sync OTA with Google and with MobileMe (or through iTunes) and you now have access to your contacts in the webapp. Snow Leopard added direct syncing of your Mac to Google, or you can use third party syncing utils to do the same on Windows and Mac.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #154 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Yes, they do, but your restatement of them is not what they say at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

No resentment of them. None of them make sense. None of them are worth resenting. ... Your points make no sense,

Hahaha, OK, whatever you say.
post #155 of 200
another reason why I hate Eric Schmidt should have stayed on the board.
post #156 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Hahaha, OK, whatever you say.

ok, I say I am still waiting for you to put together a reasonable argument. Should I get coffee while I wait? Perhaps run some errands?

Edit: My bad. I see my mistake in misreading your comment. My goof on that one.

Still, no reason to restate your statements either. They are pretty clear. And have been show to have no legs. Repeatedly.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #157 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

ok, I say I am still waiting for you to put together a reasonable argument. Should I get coffee while I wait? Perhaps run some errands?

No, just sit there at your keyboard and wait for me to post a response that you can understand.
post #158 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Translation: I don't know what a root kit is, but I would like to accuse Google Earth of being one. Please help me.


Seriously, if you don't understand what you are accusing them of, it is better not to make the accusation.


These are the best arguments against GV on the iPhone. A bunch of paranoid, inaccurate, untruthful claims about Google as a company?

You rant like 5 yrs old, who dues not read people's post properly, but got all hot and bothered, we all have different opinions and I will not listen to you, simply because you act childish.

In my opinion it was rootkit, but I was looking for clarification,. which I got. You on the other hand read too much into people's comments and go off on some childish name calling rant!
post #159 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

No, just sit there at your keyboard and wait for me to post a response that you can understand.

Finally! This is what I've been asking of you. Been waiting for a coherent post from you that explains how your believes about google might have any impact on gv being accepted or not. None of your posts so far seem to even be a serious attempt at rational arguments.


I'll wait, but I know it might be a while. Should I get my tinfoil hat out for your response?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #160 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

You rant like 5 yrs old, who dues not read people's post properly, but got all hot and bothered, we all have different opinions and I will not listen to you, simply because you act childish.

In my opinion it was rootkit, but I was looking for clarification,. which I got. You on the other hand read too much into people's comments and go off on some childish name calling rant!

If you need clarification then it is best not to accuse. That's not childish. It is a hope for intelligent debate. One could accuse google of all sorts of nefarious actions. But if you do not even understand the terminology of the accusation and the assertion is clearly wrong, you deserve to be called on it.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
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