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 2

post #41 of 200
The last time I applied for a job at Google, they didn't respond. Ultimately, it was a rejection. I do not believe they wanted to talk further about it.
post #42 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

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.

Apple have every right to refuse to sell anything they like, just as chose what they sell in the Retail Stores.

Can you name any other retailer that is forced to sell something they don't want to?
post #43 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

Is that all you have to contribute? Explain why you disagree moron!

As a starter, NOwhere in your linked reference does it say, "FCC to approve Google Voice."

In fact, it is not only a rule, or even a proposal as yet. But a "…plan to propose…"

And it has nothing to do whether Apple "rejects" the app afterall.

cc Moderator
post #44 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by parky View Post

Apple have every right to refuse to sell anything they like, just as chose what they sell in the Retail Stores.

Can you name any other retailer that is forced to sell something they don't want to?

As I understand it, many communications companies are required to sell their bandwidth to competitors.
post #45 of 200
GV is not a VoIP service so this FCC proposal doesn't affect it.

And if GV wasn't rejected in Apple words, how can we call pulling out from App Store the third party GV applications that were accepted months ago?
post #46 of 200
It's also possible that Apple know GV has a potentially huge bandwidth impact and that by approving GV they might run afoul of their contract with AT&T. Apple and AT&T likely don't want the details of their contract to be made public so Apple has to use other reasons for the long review. If AT&T is scared of Google they wouldn't want to admit it so they're letting Apple use nebulous look and feel criticisms to hide the truth.
post #47 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

It's also possible that Apple know GV has a potentially huge bandwidth impac

GV doesn't take bandwith, it's not a VoIP application, it uses cell minutes as normal calls
post #48 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

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.

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!
post #49 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

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.

Man, that is quite inflammatory. IMO.

But, I guess that is your right to say so.

I wonder how many here condone your position. I don't.

Anybody?
post #50 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

You go to the airport and you see that your flight has not arrived as scheduled. So I gather you would say it 'crashed'.

No. I'd say "Looks like Apple didn't approve the Flight Plan". "I need to look for another Airline that is more reliable with approving their flight plans".

Apple has been made to look foolish with this entire matter and those that are apologizing for Apple at this point are looking just as foolish.
post #51 of 200
Google CAN put GV on the iPhone as a Web App so it has not been rejected, if Google decides it doesn't want to do that it's Google that's at fault.

GV is still in Beta isn't it?

What gives anyone the right to demand Beta software, it's not like you can walk into Best Buy and demand a Laptop with Windows 7 installed on it.
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 #52 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

You go to the airport and you see that your flight has not arrived as scheduled. So I gather you would say it 'crashed'.

No, he would say the airline flat out lied about the "scheduled" time
post #53 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenG4 View Post

As I understand it, many communications companies are required to sell their bandwidth to competitors.

US companies are not allowed to boycott Israel by law.
post #54 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Man, that is quite inflammatory. IMO.

But, I guess that is your right to say so.

I wonder how many here condone your position. I don't.

Anybody?

I do not care if anyone here condones my position. Nor do I care if anyone thinks it is inflammatory. What is anyone here in this forum to me? Nothing more than a bunch of virtual keyboards, each with their own opinion. The difference is that I do not live in Steve Jobs pants and worship in Cupertino. Apple makes some great products. Many of which I happen to own and will continue to own, but I also see Apple for what it is. A company that is business to make money. To give as little as possible to maximize profits. I have no problems with this as I choose to continue my patronage to them. Sooooooo, if you can, prove that Apple is not lying.
post #55 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!

I have not idea what you are talking about. Did I mention a camera anywhere in my post? How did you make this unrelated leap?
post #56 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Man, that is quite inflammatory. IMO.

But, I guess that is your right to say so.

I wonder how many here condone your position. I don't.

Anybody?

I definitely second what the OP said, and if you think otherwise you really need to take a closer look at some of the stuff that has happened and is continuing to happen wrt apple and openness, if thats even a word.
post #57 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Sooooooo, if you can, prove that Apple is not lying.

If the app was rejected by Apple then Google could simply produce the rejection notice to prove it.
Why don't they?

Or is the rejection notice next to the birth certificate?
post #58 of 200
Considering that AT&T's data network speed already s*cks in many locations ... what do you suppose a VoIP app from Google would do to it (if it found widespread acceptance/use)?

I don't own an iPhone, but I use a Samsung Blackjack (for Data/work only) on AT&T and it is terrible, even though they claim "3G" (and it sure is expensive).

I would suspect that Apple's decision has more to do with AT&T then anything else. Why else would they care how someone uses the iPhone after they have made their money from the sale?

If iPhone becomes available on T-mobile, I may give it another thought and while I am ranting: the ipod lineup needs some serious improvements before I buy another one (still using a 1st gen Nano and a 1st gen "Classic"). For now Apple (once again) is a computer company to me. (sorry for going a little off-topic here, but the last ipod "updates" are just so lame).
post #59 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

If the app was rejected by Apple then Google could simply produce the rejection notice to prove it.
Why don't they?

I highly doubt Apple sent them a rejection letter, considering the phone conversation between two higher ups in both companies. Plus, if Apple know this could blow up wouldn't it suit their needs better to not supply any written communications about this?
post #60 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by toes View Post

Considering that AT&T's data network speed already s*cks in many locations ... what do you suppose a VoIP app from Google would do to it (if it found widespread acceptance/use)?

It's not a VOIP app, it uses the voice channel just like making a call today on your iphone.
post #61 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

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."

The fresh air of a rationale rebuttal devoid of speculation. Thank you.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #62 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

If the app was rejected by Apple then Google could simply produce the rejection notice to prove it.
Why don't they?

Or is the rejection notice next to the birth certificate?

Yep. They put some pictures up of cute bunnies at Easter next to their search field, and people give away all their rights to these turkeys. No company has set individual and consumer rights back further on the internet than Google. Not even evil Microsoft has pulled the kind of crap that these scumbags have gotten away with.

They are a telemarking company, that's how they make all of their revenue. They are in bed with domestic and international junk mail companies, but they put up cute bunny pics on their search and these dummies help them fight their battles. What the hell has Google ever done for you?

Apple makes this really cool, shiny iPhone that does all this wonderful stuff on its own, tens of thousands of developers (new, small, medium, big) are making a living selling their apps on the App Store. They have fanboys for a reason, they have a very long, unbroken history of deserving it. You can't even use any of Google's services on their own, you need product(s) made by others to even access them. If their feelings are hurt because they can't parasite of Apple and the iPhone in all the ways they want, they can suck it. I'd rather type random characters into my browser's address bar than help that creepy, beady-eyed, little dweeb Eric Schmidt.

A lot of whiners and brats on here, need to do a lot more reading (books not just memoirs and pamphlets). I see a lot of specific corporate talking points being expounded upon by dimwitted surrogates and whiny brats. Stop falling for the same, stupid ploys. If you're having trouble dating and meeting people, don't pretend that getting raped by Google is the same thing.
post #63 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose View Post

...
... If you're having trouble dating and meeting people, don't pretend that getting raped by Google is the same thing.

Now, that is rich!
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #64 of 200
I just realised.
Google Voice may have been rejected OMG! Or it may not have been approved yet OMG!!

But in light of a new perspective - ie. what you should actually be doing right now (work/exercise/enjoying your life) instead of posting petty shit on AI, who actually gives one whether this app is in the app store or not?
post #65 of 200
Apple, I love you...but you are worse than Microsoft when it comes to playing fair. I feel like an abused spouse....you bring me flowers (new shiny tech toys) and I forgive you....then you just turn right around and punch me in the gut by not allowing other great technology to work with you.
post #66 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.

You don't know enough about me to make any sort of presumption about what I know or don't know.

Negotiations or not, the fact is they haven't accepted the Google app as is, so they have therefor rejected it. Dancing around semantics won't change anything. It won't be accepted by Apple until changes are made. There is no gray area there.
post #67 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik View Post

The last time I applied for a job at Google, they didn't respond. Ultimately, it was a rejection. I do not believe they wanted to talk further about it.


Oh but according to some in this thread that's flawed logic. There is plenty of gray area for interpretation in their inaction. They probably weren't really rejecting you, but merely sending a message that they like you, but you need to change, so therefor they didn't really mean go away, and you're actually hired. Maybe. But they didn't reject you. See the difference?
post #68 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by steviet02 View Post

It's not a VOIP app, it uses the voice channel just like making a call today on your iphone.

I am amazed at the number of people that STILL think GV is a VoIP application. It comes up in every forum that mentions the GV/iPhone debate and it's getting old.
post #69 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Man, that is quite inflammatory. IMO.

But, I guess that is your right to say so.

I wonder how many here condone your position. I don't.

Anybody?

I have not rejected sapporobabyrtrns's position and I continue to discuss it.
post #70 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by steviet02 View Post

It's not a VOIP app, it uses the voice channel just like making a call today on your iphone.

I stand corrected. So, what exactly does this magical app do? If it just allows one to make phone calls, why would we need it? Just sayin'
post #71 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenG4 View Post

I am amazed at the number of people that STILL think GV is a VoIP application. It comes up in every forum that mentions the GV/iPhone debate and it's getting old.

Yes, there are still many people (like me) who don't care much about the iPhone and the 60k apps, because it is on AT&T only (in this country). I am happy that the iPhone has spread geekiness amongst many of my non-tech friends, and made "smartphones" de rigeur, but that's about it.

What is the big deal of even having GV on the iPhone? Maybe get an Android Phone, if it's so important?
post #72 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by toes View Post

I stand corrected. So, what exactly does this magical app do? If it just allows one to make phone calls, why would we need it? Just sayin'

this should help you get up to speed:

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=google+voice
post #73 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

You go to the airport and you see that your flight has not arrived as scheduled. So I gather you would say it 'crashed'.

No, but after waiting at the airport for a couple months, one might assume it was cancelled.

"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 #74 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by toes View Post

Yes, there are still many people (like me) who don't care much about the iPhone and the 60k apps, because it is on AT&T only (in this country). I am happy that the iPhone has spread geekiness amongst many of my non-tech friends, and made "smartphones" de rigeur, but that's about it.

What is the big deal of even having GV on the iPhone? Maybe get an Android Phone, if it's so important?

You can care nothing for the iPhone and still find GV very useful. Especially if you have more than one phone number. It's features are listed here:

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

Honestly, GV on the iPhone is just bonus for me, Fortunately, I bought GV Mobile from the iTunes app store before it was removed.
post #75 of 200
I've got a sneaking suspicion that there is a great deal of overlap between the "GV on iPhone" evangelists and the "Tunes should be open to all players" crowd. Both groups seem to believe that Apple has created platforms that should be socialized and made freely available to the masses rather than capitalized and made available at Apple's discretion for what the market will bear.
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
Apple has no competition. Every commercial product which competes directly with an Apple product gives the distinct impression that, Where it is original, it is not good, and where it is good, it...
Reply
post #76 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Google CAN put GV on the iPhone as a Web App so it has not been rejected, if Google decides it doesn't want to do that it's Google that's at fault.

GV is still in Beta isn't it?

What gives anyone the right to demand Beta software, it's not like you can walk into Best Buy and demand a Laptop with Windows 7 installed on it.

What?


Google could put GV on my Tivo, that doesn't bare any relevance to it's status in the AppStore. Google could do a webapp, but that also has no baring on it's status in the AppStore.

What gives you the right to demand any software, beta or otherwise? The service is beta, not the app.

"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 #77 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by toes View Post

I stand corrected. So, what exactly does this magical app do? If it just allows one to make phone calls, why would we need it? Just sayin'

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.

"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 #78 of 200
I think maybe the FCC is asking the wrong questions.

Instead of asking why the app was rejected, ask why it hasn't been accepted yet.

When Apple claims the app submission is still being discussed, ask about the content of said discussions and when they took place.

They need to get details from the two companies. That way it is much harder to duck and weave.
post #79 of 200
This whole, Apple lied, it was rejected, blah blah blah argument is ridiculous. I typically am not fond of the, "if you don't like it here go somewhere else," argument but if you really can't live without GV, if you're that passionate about everything Google, maybe you really should get an Android phone. I hear it's an excellent gateway drug for entering Google Paradise. You can get a Google tattoo, too, while you're at it, maybe one of those cute little things they do with their logo around your favorite holiday. Maybe you can just get the Google brain implant while you're at it: it transmits all your thoughts to Google and they tell you what you think.

First of all, here's the question the FCC posed to Google:

Quote:
What explanation was given (if any) for Apple's rejection [emphasis mine] of the Google Voice application [...]?

To which Google, of course, responded "... the Google Voice application was rejected because..."

Doesn't it seem obvious to anyone that Google decided to answer the question in the same form as it was asked because it was to their benefit to do so. Apple chose to reject the FCC's characterization of their refusal to sell the GV app as is as a "rejection" because the connotations of "rejection" imply that the app would never be approved under any circumstances. Clearly Apple and Google are still discussing the matter, which indicates that Apple hasn't definitively ruled out allowing it into the App Store under any and all circumstances or any and all forms.

It's also interesting to note that Google neglected to mention any of the specifics of why Apple hasn't allowed the app into the App store. Are we really to believe that in the phone conversations between Apple and Google executives regarding GV that Apple only gave them a one sentence response with no details. So is Google lying? I'll leave that for you to decide. But, anyone accusing Apple of lying in their response to the FCC cannot avoid the same charge against Google in theirs without engaging in a high degree of intellectual dishonesty, or not really being rational in their reaction in the first place.

Apple has declined to offer quite a few apps in the App Store in the form they were submitted. Some of them seem to have been declined for rather whimsical reasons, and for some of those Apple has reversed itself, but no small number have run up against exactly the same issues that GV does: duplication of core iPhone features. So, it's not really a surprise that Apple would decline to offer GV in the form it was submitted, nor should it have been a surprise to anyone at Google that this would happen. Did they just expect that because they are Google they can just do whatever they want. Frankly, I suspect they did.

It's kind of like listening to Eric Schmidt talk about the proposed book settlement. To paraphrase: "Well, we put a lot of time into this, we scanned these books, we got some people to agree to what we want to do, so you have to let us. No one is offering any other suggestions about how we should be allowed to do this." Well, except perhaps the suggestion that you, Google, violated copyright law and that the whole proposed settlement is illegal and that you should just start obeying copyright law and consider yourselves lucky not to go to jail or have to pay the damages that could be levied against you by applying the law.

And, of the two companies, people are comparing Apple to Microsoft? Apparently all rationality and common sense have been tossed out the window. If you can't have Google this and Google that you'll go into withdrawal. Google is electronic heroin and just as dangerous as the poppy itself.

This is not a company with your best interests at heart. This is a company that wants to own you and everything about you, and to undermine every technology company that stands in their way of doing that, in any way they can, in whatever way they have to. Are you really so naive that you believe them when they say they will, "Do no evil?" This is a company drunk on ambition and power and greed, and not a company to be trusted.

So, stand your ground Apple. Don't let them walk all over you, and don't let them turn the iPhone into an Android-clone, Google service.
post #80 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

Is that all you have to contribute? Explain why you disagree moron!
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

I agree telling someone their are wrong and not explaining is kindergarden behaviour, let's stop doing this on forum. Also the name calling is just as worse.

Gazoobee explain it very well, why you have misread the statement.
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