Comparing your ISP provider with mobile phone carrier is very poor considering, if you read your binding agreement, you know the little words in your contract that you don't read, your ISP provider is providing you a service to internet. Not sure what you are trying to get at.
In your contract it states it provides you a service to internet and if you undertake anything illegal, YOU are responsible. BTW I know in USA, some iSP providers block sites, so is that not similarly to Apple blocking Skype?? Let's not use that example, very poor indeed.
Actually i do, but very poor choice.
It may be a poor example, but your argument against it is simply weak.
1) Using google voice, skype, long distance provider, etc, is not illegal...talk about not knowing what you are trying to get at. This makes no sense at all. What is your argument by bring up engaging in illegal activity?
2) Your ISP and your carrier both provide internet access. Both have terms of service.
3) Just because a TOS says you cannot use certain services does not make those restrictions right or even legal. That is the question.
4) very few ISPs block very few sites. Usually they are blocked because of questionable legality of the site. But it is very rare. If the ISP started censoring your internet arbitrarily, it would be wrong and there would be a ruckus raised.
So, you use calling cards? Would you feel it was right for your local phone company to deny access to you for those? You have a TOS with them too. Do you feel shame because you are "sending your revenue/profit to another company, who do little to advertise and support [the carrier's] marketing expenditure"? Certainly you must, as this was the crux of your argument.
It may be a poor example, but please explain how so? Your comment does nothing but put some random words down as an argument. Please don't call something a bad example and then post such inane reasoning. Enlighten me. Please.
PS: Do you have a better analogy to the Internet Service Provided by an cellular provider than an ISP...you know, since they are by definition an ISP
Is Google voice still invite only or is it open to everyone who wants it?
Apart from everyone outside the USA, who can't get it anyway.
Isn't this Google voice service already discriminatory?
How do you get invites?
It is invite only, but everyone that applies gets one. You only complete the registration from a US IP and they only have US phone numbers to give out and you can only configure US numbers as forwarding numbers. It sux that it is still US only but it is hardly discriminatory.
I think the issue here is that Apple banned Google Voice altogether, while Google banned Skype altogether, which isn't all that different.
This is absolute nonsense. There is one important difference : Android doesn't have the exclusive market in the way AppStore does, so it is impossible to "ban" Skype application on Android. The whole article is complete rubbish. FYI : there is an official Skype application on Android Market, although it can't use WiFi for voice, yet, but I would blame Skype for that, rather than "devil" Google. There is also another VoIP application, SIPdroid which is currently in public beta and it is not blocked in any way.
I think the only way for Apple to get out of this is to make AppStore non-exclusive channel. The increasing rate of jailbroken iPhones and affairs like this should teach them such practices won't be tolerated by the customers.
Comments
Comparing your ISP provider with mobile phone carrier is very poor considering, if you read your binding agreement, you know the little words in your contract that you don't read, your ISP provider is providing you a service to internet. Not sure what you are trying to get at.
In your contract it states it provides you a service to internet and if you undertake anything illegal, YOU are responsible. BTW I know in USA, some iSP providers block sites, so is that not similarly to Apple blocking Skype?? Let's not use that example, very poor indeed.
Actually i do, but very poor choice.
It may be a poor example, but your argument against it is simply weak.
1) Using google voice, skype, long distance provider, etc, is not illegal...talk about not knowing what you are trying to get at. This makes no sense at all. What is your argument by bring up engaging in illegal activity?
2) Your ISP and your carrier both provide internet access. Both have terms of service.
3) Just because a TOS says you cannot use certain services does not make those restrictions right or even legal. That is the question.
4) very few ISPs block very few sites. Usually they are blocked because of questionable legality of the site. But it is very rare. If the ISP started censoring your internet arbitrarily, it would be wrong and there would be a ruckus raised.
So, you use calling cards? Would you feel it was right for your local phone company to deny access to you for those? You have a TOS with them too. Do you feel shame because you are "sending your revenue/profit to another company, who do little to advertise and support [the carrier's] marketing expenditure"? Certainly you must, as this was the crux of your argument.
It may be a poor example, but please explain how so? Your comment does nothing but put some random words down as an argument. Please don't call something a bad example and then post such inane reasoning. Enlighten me. Please.
PS: Do you have a better analogy to the Internet Service Provided by an cellular provider than an ISP...you know, since they are by definition an ISP
Apart from everyone outside the USA, who can't get it anyway.
Isn't this Google voice service already discriminatory?
How do you get invites?
Is Google voice still invite only or is it open to everyone who wants it?
Apart from everyone outside the USA, who can't get it anyway.
Isn't this Google voice service already discriminatory?
How do you get invites?
It is invite only, but everyone that applies gets one. You only complete the registration from a US IP and they only have US phone numbers to give out and you can only configure US numbers as forwarding numbers. It sux that it is still US only but it is hardly discriminatory.
ATT says it had nothing do with the GV app rejection: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/...e-att-fcc.html
It true, they are owed one mighty apology from a whole bunch of Apple/GV fans (including me).
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.c...lications.html
I think the issue here is that Apple banned Google Voice altogether, while Google banned Skype altogether, which isn't all that different.
This is absolute nonsense. There is one important difference : Android doesn't have the exclusive market in the way AppStore does, so it is impossible to "ban" Skype application on Android. The whole article is complete rubbish. FYI : there is an official Skype application on Android Market, although it can't use WiFi for voice, yet, but I would blame Skype for that, rather than "devil" Google. There is also another VoIP application, SIPdroid which is currently in public beta and it is not blocked in any way.
I think the only way for Apple to get out of this is to make AppStore non-exclusive channel. The increasing rate of jailbroken iPhones and affairs like this should teach them such practices won't be tolerated by the customers.