When fanboism/brand boot-licking reach that state of self-harm mindset, it is scary...
As somebody who considered himself one of the biggest Apple fans, I can't understand how ANYBODY can justify this. Apple is stifling innovation and basic functionality. This really is disgusting.
Do people own or rent their iPhones? Which is it? If it is the former, by what right does Apple have to enforce any use of the phone after it is sold? If it is the latter, then all their contracts are based on misrepresentation of the contract. Everyone I know thinks they own their phones. As for controlling the usage of the network, that would be something that AT&T would liekly have a right to do, but not Apple, but they likely couldn't do it in such a clearly anti-competitive fashion without eliciting the attention of the Justice Dept. The only way tht they are able to do so now, is by having Apple accomplish these "enforcements" for them as a third party through their iTunes system. I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me that this raises both issues of tort and conspiracy to evade Federal law. Where is Obama's Justice Department? The one that was going to give us change we could believe in? The one that was going to stop letting the corporations run roughshod over American consumers?
As somebody who considered himself one of the biggest Apple fans, I can't understand how ANYBODY can justify this. Apple is stifling innovation and basic functionality. This really is disgusting.
Agreed. Huge Apple fan and have used their products since my dad brought home the Apple IIe many, many years ago. And this move is openly dirty.
Whether this decision was for Apple's benefit or AT&T's, it is without question a move that negatively impacts customers. Some customer seem to like being told how to use their products and services that they pay for. or being denied rights that have been legally granted to them. It's like, as long as Apple/AT&T tell them it is ok, then it must be ok. Sheep.
Apple Fan != nut hugging, blind, naive or stupid. For most anyway.
If Phil Schiller gave his personal okay on the project (if that's actually true) it's really in bad taste for Apple to now pull a 180 only after Google finished developing the app.
Apple will be loosing supporters over moves like this that you can bank on.
If Phil Schiller gave his personal okay on the project (if that's actually true) it's really in bad taste for Apple to now pull a 180 only after Google finished developing the app.
Apple will be loosing supporters over moves like this that you can bank on.
Dave
I will definitely consider an Android device for my next phone. All things being equal, I prefer to buy Apple. If Apple is going to prevent me from using a service that I was very intent on using when available in Canada, then I have to look at alternatives. I won't jump to any old crappy alternative, but Android and the Pre are both looking very strong. They might be strong enough, that given the artificial limitations being enforced by Apple, it would only make sense to consider them.
If they did kill it because of VVM competition, they are right that I would consider dropping VVM from my plan if the GV VVM is as good or better. This doesn't make them then killing potential competition right. They should have instead considered improving on their already great VVM service.
Has it occurred to anyone that Google Voice was taken off not because it duplitcates services already on the iPhone, but actually services that are still planned to come in the near future? Maybe as part of Mobile Me or something?
That could explain why Skype, Truphone which are far more popular and available than Google Voice etc are still around...
Syncman will sync your Mac Address book with GMail effortlessly. I didn't sync contacts with Gmail until I got my Google Voice number. I update my iphone, it syncs to MobileMe, then I have SyncMan set to sync every hour to GMail (you can choose one way, bi-directional, etc. with many options) to reflect the change.
This could be a good thing for Google's Android if they allow it on that phone, but, as the carriers are probably the ones who object, it's unlikely Google would be able to include GV with an Android phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSnarkmeister
Do people own or rent their iPhones? Which is it?
You essentially own your iPhone, but rent the phone service that makes it work. Without the phone service, it's basically an iPod Touch.
This is so infuriating. I am a regular user of Google Voice and of the iPhone, and I want to be able to use them together. This kind of infuriatingly anti-customer, anti-competitive behavior by Apple (colluding or not with AT&T) in pulling Google Voice apps will drive me away from the iPhone and into more open platforms, like that of Android.
This could be a good thing for Google's Android if they allow it on that phone, but, as the carriers are probably the ones who object, it's unlikely Google would be able to include GV with an Android phone.
..and hence the comment "Not all of us keep all our contacts on Google". GV Mobile allowed you to select you contacts from your phone. Now, he will have to. Not a biggie, but answering his valid question with sarcasm is just petty.
My reply was not sarcastic. Reread.
No, but maybe being crippled in this way is enough to not want it. There are lots of individual ways Apple could further cripple the iPhone/Apps that would be deal killers for people, without being their sole criteria for having purchased the iPhone initially. Especially functionality that was there/allowed when he bought it.
The poster had already purchased an iPhone. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
This is so infuriating. I am a regular user of Google Voice and of the iPhone, and I want to be able to use them together. This kind of infuriatingly anti-customer, anti-competitive behavior by Apple (colluding or not with AT&T) in pulling Google Voice apps will drive me away from the iPhone and into more open platforms, like that of Android.
You can still use them together, just not by using this app (which was not created by Google anyway).
You essentially own your iPhone, but rent the phone service that makes it work. Without the phone service, it's basically an iPod Touch.
I have two iPhones on my desk I have to unlock after each OS upgrade. They are iPhones without contracts (upgrade to 3G then to 3GS). You would think it would be ok to continue to use them as iPods and update the OS but not so. Sometimes Apple sucks.
The more I think about this, the more likely it seems that Apple did this in order not to face legal action from AT&T for violating the carrier's contract. Apple presumably agreed that it would not allow iPhone apps that would directly compete with AT&T's phone and messaging services. Too bad Apple didn't have the guts to fight for this one: users can get most of the same services on the Web, just as they will do with Google Latitude, but some useful aspects of the Google Voice service will thereby be crippled. AT&T doesn't ultimately gain anything from this decision, nor does Apple, except that both companies will incur users' understandable frustration and wrath.
Forgotten? It's new. How could it be forgotten when it's still in limited beta?
It's not that new of a project. It used to be called Grand Central, apparently launched in 2006. Not that it mattered, it really didn't take hold. Very few people even heard of it, much less actually got it. It got a new name and a little marketing effort this year. I wonder if this invitation-only type system is just a bad idea. GV sounds interesting, but I'm certainly not going to go begging for an invitation to the system.
You cannot be charged for receiving SMS on an iPod Touch. You CAN be charged for SMS messages you send from an iPhone or receive on an iPhone, which I gather, is what this person was doing.
They cannot bill an owner of an iPod Touch. It has no cell service and relies on WiFi for it's connection. When AOL says their service is free, they mean they themselves won't charge you to use their service. If you have their AIM messages being forwarded to your cell phone however, they arrive as an SMS message, not as an instant message unless you happen to be logged into the AIM software and actively running it at the time you receive the instant message. The AIM app cannot run in the background. When you are logged into the AIM app, you receive an Instant Message (not billable). When AIM is not actively running, you receive an SMS instead (assuming you have forwarded your AIM messages to your cell). It even warns you when you enable the AIM forwarding service that service charges may apply from your cell provider for SMS messages.
As to what Apple is doing, they seem to be crossing a line at times with their policy regarding allowed apps. All I can say here is that they need to watch themselves. This is a new day and a new administration and Apple is already in their sights as well as AT&T when it comes to anti-trust.
I love Apple products, but they seem to be going too far in censoring applications and data on the iPhone. I am fully capable of deciding what is appropriate and what is not appropriate on my phone. If they have a legal commitment to AT&T that forced this then I would say they are making bad decisions that reflect poorly on Apple and hopefully they will do better in the future.
For those stating that 3g lag doesn't affect VOIP (yes I know this Google Voice is not a VOIP app but I couldn't resist), average 3g lag runs in the 1000 to 2000 millisecond range. That's 1-2 seconds to the laymen. It is undeniably noticeable. You get what you pay for. I don't see why cell providers are so afraid of VOIP apps, especially over 3G. The typical person would still use a cell service instead of VOIP due to lack of technical expertise or even knowledge that VOIP exists, lag, and bad connection quality. If you doubt it, you can download a free app called "Speed Test" from the app store which will report average ping times to a local server. You may be surprised at how poorly 3g performs in this respect.
I'm puzzled why you say that, it doesn't make sense. I think you left out a couple steps showing how it hurts Apple.
If not, why is an app necessary for this?
Sorry for the ignorance, but I'm not finding much info about it in action.
You log in to google voice via app, click the contact you want to dial (or dial the number), wait for your phone to ring. Answer your phone. Then it works like normal.
Without the app you must use the browser and that sucks compared to the app.
This is yet another reason that if Verizon ever gets the iphone I will be one of those goofballs on tv waiting in 5 hours lines to sign up. I give ATT too much money to be shortchanged. If ATT reads this....Ich verlasse dich!!!
You do realize that Verizon is even more controlling than AT&T, right?
The iPhone is only on AT&T because Verizon would not allow Apple to make a phone Verizon did not control. It had to have Verizon's logo on the phone, it had to have Verizon's God awful menu system, etc. They also would not add Visual Voice mail.
I want something other than AT&T too, but Verizon is even worse.
Comments
When fanboism/brand boot-licking reach that state of self-harm mindset, it is scary...
As somebody who considered himself one of the biggest Apple fans, I can't understand how ANYBODY can justify this. Apple is stifling innovation and basic functionality. This really is disgusting.
As somebody who considered himself one of the biggest Apple fans, I can't understand how ANYBODY can justify this. Apple is stifling innovation and basic functionality. This really is disgusting.
Agreed. Huge Apple fan and have used their products since my dad brought home the Apple IIe many, many years ago. And this move is openly dirty.
Whether this decision was for Apple's benefit or AT&T's, it is without question a move that negatively impacts customers. Some customer seem to like being told how to use their products and services that they pay for. or being denied rights that have been legally granted to them. It's like, as long as Apple/AT&T tell them it is ok, then it must be ok. Sheep.
Apple Fan != nut hugging, blind, naive or stupid. For most anyway.
If Phil Schiller gave his personal okay on the project (if that's actually true) it's really in bad taste for Apple to now pull a 180 only after Google finished developing the app.
Apple will be loosing supporters over moves like this that you can bank on.
Dave
This is not what I'd expect from Apple...
If Phil Schiller gave his personal okay on the project (if that's actually true) it's really in bad taste for Apple to now pull a 180 only after Google finished developing the app.
Apple will be loosing supporters over moves like this that you can bank on.
Dave
I will definitely consider an Android device for my next phone. All things being equal, I prefer to buy Apple. If Apple is going to prevent me from using a service that I was very intent on using when available in Canada, then I have to look at alternatives. I won't jump to any old crappy alternative, but Android and the Pre are both looking very strong. They might be strong enough, that given the artificial limitations being enforced by Apple, it would only make sense to consider them.
If they did kill it because of VVM competition, they are right that I would consider dropping VVM from my plan if the GV VVM is as good or better. This doesn't make them then killing potential competition right. They should have instead considered improving on their already great VVM service.
That could explain why Skype, Truphone which are far more popular and available than Google Voice etc are still around...
Works great.
Do people own or rent their iPhones? Which is it?
You essentially own your iPhone, but rent the phone service that makes it work. Without the phone service, it's basically an iPod Touch.
This could be a good thing for Google's Android if they allow it on that phone, but, as the carriers are probably the ones who object, it's unlikely Google would be able to include GV with an Android phone.
It is already available.
..and hence the comment "Not all of us keep all our contacts on Google". GV Mobile allowed you to select you contacts from your phone. Now, he will have to. Not a biggie, but answering his valid question with sarcasm is just petty.
My reply was not sarcastic. Reread.
No, but maybe being crippled in this way is enough to not want it. There are lots of individual ways Apple could further cripple the iPhone/Apps that would be deal killers for people, without being their sole criteria for having purchased the iPhone initially. Especially functionality that was there/allowed when he bought it.
The poster had already purchased an iPhone. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
This is so infuriating. I am a regular user of Google Voice and of the iPhone, and I want to be able to use them together. This kind of infuriatingly anti-customer, anti-competitive behavior by Apple (colluding or not with AT&T) in pulling Google Voice apps will drive me away from the iPhone and into more open platforms, like that of Android.
You can still use them together, just not by using this app (which was not created by Google anyway).
You essentially own your iPhone, but rent the phone service that makes it work. Without the phone service, it's basically an iPod Touch.
I have two iPhones on my desk I have to unlock after each OS upgrade. They are iPhones without contracts (upgrade to 3G then to 3GS). You would think it would be ok to continue to use them as iPods and update the OS but not so. Sometimes Apple sucks.
As for GOOGLE, it must be nice to make money basically off the backs of others, and in particular, Apple.
I'm puzzled why you say that, it doesn't make sense. I think you left out a couple steps showing how it hurts Apple.
GV is not a VOIP app.
If not, why is an app necessary for this?
Sorry for the ignorance, but I'm not finding much info about it in action.
Why is an app necessary for this?
An app is NOT necessary to use Google Voice.
Forgotten? It's new. How could it be forgotten when it's still in limited beta?
It's not that new of a project. It used to be called Grand Central, apparently launched in 2006. Not that it mattered, it really didn't take hold. Very few people even heard of it, much less actually got it. It got a new name and a little marketing effort this year. I wonder if this invitation-only type system is just a bad idea. GV sounds interesting, but I'm certainly not going to go begging for an invitation to the system.
They cannot bill an owner of an iPod Touch. It has no cell service and relies on WiFi for it's connection. When AOL says their service is free, they mean they themselves won't charge you to use their service. If you have their AIM messages being forwarded to your cell phone however, they arrive as an SMS message, not as an instant message unless you happen to be logged into the AIM software and actively running it at the time you receive the instant message. The AIM app cannot run in the background. When you are logged into the AIM app, you receive an Instant Message (not billable). When AIM is not actively running, you receive an SMS instead (assuming you have forwarded your AIM messages to your cell). It even warns you when you enable the AIM forwarding service that service charges may apply from your cell provider for SMS messages.
As to what Apple is doing, they seem to be crossing a line at times with their policy regarding allowed apps. All I can say here is that they need to watch themselves. This is a new day and a new administration and Apple is already in their sights as well as AT&T when it comes to anti-trust.
I love Apple products, but they seem to be going too far in censoring applications and data on the iPhone. I am fully capable of deciding what is appropriate and what is not appropriate on my phone. If they have a legal commitment to AT&T that forced this then I would say they are making bad decisions that reflect poorly on Apple and hopefully they will do better in the future.
For those stating that 3g lag doesn't affect VOIP (yes I know this Google Voice is not a VOIP app but I couldn't resist), average 3g lag runs in the 1000 to 2000 millisecond range. That's 1-2 seconds to the laymen. It is undeniably noticeable. You get what you pay for. I don't see why cell providers are so afraid of VOIP apps, especially over 3G. The typical person would still use a cell service instead of VOIP due to lack of technical expertise or even knowledge that VOIP exists, lag, and bad connection quality. If you doubt it, you can download a free app called "Speed Test" from the app store which will report average ping times to a local server. You may be surprised at how poorly 3g performs in this respect.
I'm puzzled why you say that, it doesn't make sense. I think you left out a couple steps showing how it hurts Apple.
If not, why is an app necessary for this?
Sorry for the ignorance, but I'm not finding much info about it in action.
You log in to google voice via app, click the contact you want to dial (or dial the number), wait for your phone to ring. Answer your phone. Then it works like normal.
Without the app you must use the browser and that sucks compared to the app.
This is yet another reason that if Verizon ever gets the iphone I will be one of those goofballs on tv waiting in 5 hours lines to sign up. I give ATT too much money to be shortchanged. If ATT reads this....Ich verlasse dich!!!
You do realize that Verizon is even more controlling than AT&T, right?
The iPhone is only on AT&T because Verizon would not allow Apple to make a phone Verizon did not control. It had to have Verizon's logo on the phone, it had to have Verizon's God awful menu system, etc. They also would not add Visual Voice mail.
I want something other than AT&T too, but Verizon is even worse.