And yet, for all of that, Apple is encouraging them to do it as a web app, which will still duplicate those same functions. Maybe not as nicely, but it should do the job.
The web app could function as just as full a replacement, so why no problem there? Maybe it would be limited compared to the native app in some way. Certainly, the two examples Apple gave of replaced functionality, SMS and VVM, would benefit from being native, if only because of Push, which a web app wouldn't have.
Which is another good point.
It's my assumption that the web app will be less convienent to use and somehow more "limited" in some way, as you say. There's nothing like a native app, both for speed and ease of use. It would be hard (seems so, anyway) for a web app to trump a native app in that department, so Apple might feel less threatened in this regard.
See, this brings us into a new realm. While we want that "choice", at the same time we've got Apple's position on the matter (which is becoming a little clearer now), which is also understandable to a degree.
I agree with you when you say "Apple, don't be afraid of GV, just make what you offer even better." Sure, and I'd hope Apple does. But if GV does amount to some kind of infringement, then Apple might be less inclined to "compete", as GV isn't a competitor, but an infringement of some sort. But that's just one perspective, right? Apple is seeing whats possible here and might hopefully work with AT&T in bringing their own implementation of it to the table. But as pmz said, Apple might be reluctant to rock the AT&T boat just yet.
If Google wants to compete, then it might be better for them to offer this on a Google-based phone instead and *then* let the chips fall where they may. Because then, it isn't just about GV, but about the entire Google "user experience" that's also being put to the test. Perhaps in that case GV might be less popular, when it's wrapped in a Google interface.
This is just a lot of speculation, of course, but it's certainly helping me understand the deeper levels of this issue.
Tell that to Martha Stewart. Who cares if it's called "perjury" or "lying to investigators and obstruction of justice" when you are sitting in a jail cell. One of the charges against Stewart included the assertion that public statements she made (to no one in particular) declaring her innocence were part of a conspiracy to mislead investors.
False statements don't have to be "sworn", "under oath". or made to particular officials to get you into serious legal trouble.
True enough. But abster2core was very condesending when he said some people need an education in US law and then gave this lesson by explaining it was perjury. Which, by actual definition, it is not.
I think so and is what I have been saying since the app was first rejected ( ok, not formally rejected but put into approval limbo). I would suggest to Apple, don't be afraid of GV. Beat them. Improve upon what you have and beat them. Of course, the real trojan horse is that the GV service (not the app) offer a lot for free that Apple will never be willing to offer for free (nor do I think the should) . But free is hard to beat so better to ban/delay the app?
OK, let's review Trojan Horses:
? figurative a person or thing intended secretly to undermine or bring about the downfall of an enemy or opponent.
? Computing a program designed to breach the security of a computer system while ostensibly performing some innocuous function.
-- from the OS X Dictionary app
The GV app is a Trojan Horse in both these senses:
It's designed to undermine Apple's iPhone user experience by providing an alternative UI that replaces Apple's user experience with Google's. All of Google's services have this intent: to replace the native user experience on any platform with Google's.
It's designed to capture as much user identifiable information as it can from each user so that Google can use that information for it's own purposes. Again, all Google's services have this intent: to capture as much information about you as they can so they can use that to serve their ends.
This is a very clear business strategy on Google's part. To undermine anyone that currently provides a computer user experience that Google can't control and to collect as much user identifiable information on everyone as they can.
They do this by offering free services that require you to hand over your data -- you contacts, your email, your documents, your search habits, etc. -- then use your data for their purposes. Currently, they use this to sell ads. It's unlikely that they will stop at that (or that they don't go beyond it already).
This isn't about Apple being concerned about being cut out of a little transactional income. This is about Apple being concerned about Google's control of the user experience and how that affects Apple in the long run.
It's also about why people are so foolish to hand over anything Google wants just because Google offers them a bit of candy.
Funny how Mac basher are incapable of anything more than the same old, tired ad hominem attacks.
Did it ever occur to you to debate the topic rationally as most of Apple's defenders are?
I "debated the topic rationally" (Comment #61, page 2), and while my post could be called windy or worse, and no one has an obligation to respond directly to anyone else - and I am and will continue to be a Mac user - I did respectfully raise real issues which effect all iPhone and Touch users, and almost no "Apple defenders" have bothered to even deal with many of them anywhere in this discussion.
So it's "funny" how many A-fans seem incapable of going beyond parroting the company line, even if it is still my favorite tech company after all these years.
(Not to say much of the discussion hasn't been interesting within its bounds.)
Anyway, I may be a pundit without portfolio simply pouting about being ignored, but my point is it can be useful to both customers and company to admire without suspending the faculty of rational criticism and plugging one's ears when people bring up "inconvenient truths" you don't want to hear.
Apple has never and still absolutely does not make an explicit or implicit agreement with an iPhone buyer that such buyer can add software to the iPhone, excepting what is already provided at purchase and what Apple will provide via future updates (implicitly over the useful life, which is accepted as 2 years) or since July 2008, through third parties via its App Store and iTunes. Buyers should have no expectation that they can add software in any other way. Apple is selling a smartphone - a phone, an iPod, a web browser, and access to its App Store/iTunes Store. It is not a PC.
This is a very different model than that used for PCs. In the PC model, it is now well accepted that the PC vendor is providing a platform (Windows, Mac OS, some form of Linux, etc) that is open to any software created for that platform. That might never have been explicit but it is well-accepted.
Given that Apple has never advertised or promised freedom (beyond iTunes/App Store) to add software to its iPhone (such as in the PC model), there is no restraint of trade relative to software for its iPhone. It is not a monopoly, but a vertically-integrated system, which is clearly allowed and supported by law.
AT&T's submittal lays out that there are four parts involved: wireless device (iPhone), operating system (iPhone OS), applications (iTunes Store), and Internet connectivity (provided by AT&T). Apple is vertically-integrating the first three by itself, and partnering with AT&T to vertically-integrate the fourth part. The following is from AT&T's submittal, footnote 12, referring to part 4 (AT&T and Apple), but it applies equally as well within Apple's own system (parts 1-3).
"See Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36, 54-55, 57-58 (1977) (?Vertical restrictions promote interbrand competition by allowing the manufacturer to achieve certain efficiencies in the distribution of his products. These ?redeeming virtues? are implicit in every decision sustaining vertical restrictions under the rule of reason. Economists have identified a number of ways in which manufacturers can use such restrictions to compete more effectively against other manufacturers? ? such as inducing retailers to make ?investment of capital and labor? or ?engage in promotional activities,? as well as ensuring product quality and preventing free riding. ?Such restrictions, in varying forms, are widely used in our free market economy. . . . [T]here is substantial scholarly and judicial authority supporting their economic utility. There is relatively little authority to the contrary.?). See also Richard J. Wegener, et al, Restricted Distribution 2009: Thirtysomething Sylvania and the State of Non-Price Vertical Restraints, American Law Institute ? American Bar Association, SP050 ALI-ABA 43 (March 2009); William J. Kolasky, Jr., Antitrust Enforcement Guidelines for Strategic Alliances, Practicing Law Institute (July-August 1998)."
Again, if you don't like this vertically-integrated system of 3 parts or 4 parts, you are free to choose a wireless device alternative where only 2 parts are tied (device and OS) by a vendor, such as an unlocked HTC Android or Nokia Symbian or RIM Blackberry.
Appreciate your thoughtful response, Mark. I am not a lawyer but it seems important to me to note that Continental TV did not overturn any anti-competitive provision of the Sherman Anti-trust act. It affirmed an appeals court decision that Sylania was not violating Sherman "per se" as Continental had argued. The scope of the decision did not encompass "rule of reason" since that had not been originally argued.
The end result of Apple's marketing scheme is that developers have only one place to sell their iphone software, Apple. Any innovation that may run contrary to Apple's throttle hold on development or endangers theirs or ATT's revenue streams regardless of benefit for the end consumer falls into a black hole.
Apple thinks it can get away with it, and with most of the California delegation in their pocket one way or the other perhaps they can. But I am telling you that I want to be able to make use of the centralized number approach that Google offers with their product, and most particularly, something ATT completely denies me, the ability to block specific callers (telemarketers). The anti-competitive nature of Apple's scheme is preventing this benefit for all iphone users. The rise of the corporatocracy since Reagan/Clinton has encouraged big outfits like Apple to reason that they can get away with pretty much anything they want. And with forum members such as found here mouthing the oft repeated sentiment that its "Apple's phone and they can do what they damned well want with it," it is little wonder to me that Apple should think this way. But I goddamn beg to differ. The iphone is sold in a system to members of a society. Apple gets taxpayer funded benefits that protects their inventions from unlicensed use, protects their exclusive use of publicly owned spectra, and provides all of the infrastructure that allows Apple to exist as a concern. Apple is not entirely free to do whatever in the hell it wants with its product. It has to conform to law.
Personally I do not care HOW many poorly applicable cites the shyster from ATT pulls out of his pants, Apple is engaged in anti-competitive behavior with the App Store on the one hand and the threat of a bricked phone in the other. Consumers are being denied fully functional flash sites and several other benefits solely due to Apple's monopolistic market in applications and the only reason for it is protection of the Apple revenue stream from competing innovation.
The saddest part of this is that the reason the government was provoked into this (admitedly limp) action was because the complainant is Google. I am no more enthused about Google's ability to command the attention of the FCC than I am about Apple's. They are both huge corporations and should be monitored closely for malfeasance by regulators, not be given the key to the city every time they desire government intrusion for their personal benefit.
I really think it quite simply two fold: Apple wants to preserve their built in functionality and not be outclassed by other programming options. They also want to preserve the revenue stream of the iPhones built in functionality for as long as possible. They realize that the future consists of a single iPhone data charge that covers all function of the phone over any network. That has it's competitive limits, and ultimately means less monthly revenue from the product > less interest from carriers > less flexability > less subsidy.
You keep calling it perjury and even sought to educate your fellow members here on US law...but I don't think you really know what the word means.
Note any statements in the responses being made while sworn or under oath? Were they made to a member of congress or the judiciary while under oath?
Lying to the FCC, while not under oath or in a sworn affidavit would likely result in fines or other sanctions. It's not perjury.
You are correct in part.
As I originally posted, i.e., For those of you who have denigrated comments by accusing Apple of lying, perhaps a little course on your judicial system is in order. To openly declare that Apple would overtly commit perjury is a testament of not only ignorance but stupidity." was in a general response to a comment made earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manos del destino
This response is a lie. ?But here's the lucky part for Apple: the FCC, FTC, and just about every other govt. regulatory body charged with oversight of corporate behavior are so full of cowards and layabouts that nothing substantive will come of any of this no matter how much Apple lies in depositions.
I had taken the letter from Apple as being a deposition, and as by definition, a deposition is taken under oath.
However, now having access to the letters to the FCC, it would appear that although they are not depositions, lying to their questions in any format could have serious consequences. One that Apple would surely consider in light of their need to cooperate with the agency if they ever wanted to continue to provide products that need their approval.
And if Apple were to be subpoenaed in front of the FCC and lied under oath in testimony, depositions or supported materials, it would be perjury.
"In the United States, for example,?The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official."
The anti-competitive nature of Apple's scheme is preventing this benefit for all iphone users. The rise of the corporatocracy since Reagan/Clinton has encouraged big outfits like Apple to reason that they can get away with pretty much anything they want. And with forum members such as found here mouthing the oft repeated sentiment that its "Apple's phone and they can do what they damned well want with it," it is little wonder to me that Apple should think this way. But I goddamn beg to differ. The iphone is sold in a system to members of a society. Apple gets taxpayer funded benefits that protects their inventions from unlicensed use, protects their exclusive use of publicly owned spectra, and provides all of the infrastructure that allows Apple to exist as a concern. Apple is not entirely free to do whatever in the hell it wants with its product. It has to conform to law.
[...]
The saddest part of this is that the reason the government was provoked into this (admitedly limp) action was because the complainant is Google. I am no more enthused about Google's ability to command the attention of the FCC than I am about Apple's. They are both huge corporations and should be monitored closely for malfeasance by regulators, not be given the key to the city every time they desire government intrusion for their personal benefit.
The last part of your post comes very close to recognizing the real problem here, but your analysis makes the mistake of reversing the true position of the two companies.
There is pretty much zero danger, at the present time, of Apple controlling how people access information on a large scale. There is however, a great danger of Google doing so now and in the future. Google's intentions to control how you access information and what you can do with it, as well as who ultimately controls it, are on par with Microsoft's attempt to control how user's accessed the internet by undermining Netscape, and both companies were/are in a position to be able to do so; Apple is in no position to be able to do this widely, and should not be the focus of concern at this time.
The GV app, and all other Google apps, tools and services are all about controlling how you access information and what you can do with it, and what they can do with it. In that context, Apple's attempt to control the iPhone user experience (and it's not at all about revenue streams, per se) ought to be of very little concern to regulators.
As I originally posted, i.e., For those of you who have denigrated comments by accusing Apple of lying, perhaps a little course on your judicial system is in order. To openly declare that Apple would overtly commit perjury is a testament of not only ignorance but stupidity." was in a general response to a comment made earlier:
I had taken the letter from Apple as being a deposition, and as by definition, a deposition is taken under oath.
However, now having access to the letters to the FCC, it would appear that although they are not depositions, lying to their questions in any format could have serious consequences. One that Apple would surely consider in light of their need to cooperate with the agency if they ever wanted to continue to provide products that need their approval.
And if Apple were to be subpoenaed in front of the FCC and lied under oath in testimony, depositions or supported materials, it would be perjury.
"In the United States, for example,?The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official."
Absolutely. A charge of perjury then comes down to whether Apple believed or had reason to believe they were giving their response under penalty of perjury or under oath. I don't see anything in the request for information or response that would make me believe they were or thought they were, but it is possible. Regardless of if it would be legally defined as perjury, lying to the FCC in a formal response would and should carry penalties. They are a government regulatory body and as such has the authority to sanction and penalize a company for lying, which would not be in Apple's best interests, as they rely on the FCC for approval.
In any event, I do not think Apple lied in their response. I do think they intentionally gave answers that could be misleading. For example, their use of the word 'replace'. Even though they clearly and only give examples of their "UI being replaced" that show they mean replaced as in given an alternative, many interpret it as meaning Apple functionality is actually removed and replaced by Google's app. This is obviously not the case with even a cursory reading, but none the less, it has been interpreted as such by some.
Actually, even their examples are misleading.
Quote:
For example, on an iPhone, the ?Phone? icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple?s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple?s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple?s Visual Voicemail
They state that the GV app would replace Apple's VVM, intentionally leading some to take it to mean the Apple VVM is removed. But then they continue to explain that they mean it is actually replaced because calls are routed through a separate GV telephone number that stores the voice mail. This makes it sound like calls are being rerouted to the GV phone number, when in fact the calls that go to the GV Voice Mail system are only calls that were made to the GV phone number. It would be identical to you using an app that allowed you to retrieve voice main left on your home answering machine, which were left when people called your home phone number. The only difference is that the GV service first rings your home phone or work phone or iPhone. If anyone direct dials your cell phone number, their messages will be left on your Apple VVM server. Nothing is rerouted in that sense and Apple's VVM is clearly not disabled, as they state, just made redundant with a free service. It is 'disabled' only in the sense that if it isn't used, it is disabled. Note that they say 'disabled' as an example of the voice mail being stored elsewhere. Denying or delaying the app for this reason would be the same as denying an app that automated listening to you home answering machine.
Their second example is similarly misleading.
Quote:
Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub?replacing the iPhone?s text messaging feature.
Again, the iPhones text messaging feature is only replaced if a user choose not to use it and exclusively uses the GV SMS feature. Any SMS that are sent to your iPhone phone number will appear in the iPhones built in messaging app. The GV receives only SMS sent to your GV number. Someone not paying attention, might read the work 'replacing' and think it meant the iPhone's Messages app was removed. But again, it is only 'replaced' in the sense that a user can use it as a replacement. They could opt to use both or neither or the built in option.
Then there is their statement about the user contacts list on the iPhone.
Quote:
In addition, the iPhone user?s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google?s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways.
Unbelievably, some have read this to mean the contacts data is sent to Google without the user's consent or knowledge. This is the most vexing misreading or intentional fabrication. It obviously says nothing of the sort. While this could be the case, I would have my doubts. Whether it is the case or not, Apple's statement certainly contains no such accusation.
They state that they "have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways". This is an incredibly vague statement. Did they even request this consent from Google? If they did, what reason would Google have for not giving such assurances? If Google was the malevolent entity that some believe them to be, why would they not simply give the assurances and then break their word? What is Apple's definition of 'appropriate'? I am sure Google feels they would only use it appropriately, even if we or Apple would not.
Again, I don't think Apple actually lied in their statement to the FCC. I think the were intentionally vague and used language that was open to interpretation, with the knowledge that some would misconstrue the meaning.
? figurative a person or thing intended secretly to undermine or bring about the downfall of an enemy or opponent.
? Computing a program designed to breach the security of a computer system while ostensibly performing some innocuous function.
-- from the OS X Dictionary app
The GV app is a Trojan Horse in both these senses:
It's designed to undermine Apple's iPhone user experience by providing an alternative UI that replaces Apple's user experience with Google's. All of Google's services have this intent: to replace the native user experience on any platform with Google's.
It's designed to capture as much user identifiable information as it can from each user so that Google can use that information for it's own purposes. Again, all Google's services have this intent: to capture as much information about you as they can so they can use that to serve their ends.
I would disagree with both of your interpretations, but in either case at that point it comes down to opinion. In my limited personal experience, I have no reason to believe in the benevolence or malevolevnce of either Google of Apple.
The first case you presented, by definition requires it to be secret. Google make no secret about their desire to provde an alternative to features offered natievly, on PC's Mac and cell phones. It also requires the desire to undermine or attempt to bring the 'downfall of an opponent'. Providing an alternative does not undermine Apple, especially if the native features are left in place for the user to use. providing an alternative is simply to provide the user with choice.
The second case, that it is a program designed to breach the security of a computer system barely requires a response. While you may feel that they want to collect all of your information for nefarious purposes, this is only your opinion. If you use google applications, you agree to their terms for the use of your data. I don't see anywhere in those terms that says they will use or abuse my data nor collect it without my consent. An at minimum, there is nothing that appears to breach any security, computer or otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
This is a very clear business strategy on Google's part. To undermine anyone that currently provides a computer user experience that Google can't control and to collect as much user identifiable information on everyone as they can.
They do this by offering free services that require you to hand over your data -- you contacts, your email, your documents, your search habits, etc. -- then use your data for their purposes. Currently, they use this to sell ads. It's unlikely that they will stop at that (or that they don't go beyond it already).
This is opinion and does not seem entirely based on fact. The only have access to documents that you store on their systems and they are clear in their terms that you retain ownership of them. Also, contacts are only made available to them if you make them available. I have a grand total of 3 contacts in my GMail account, and they are only there because they aee friends that use gmail. All of my other contacts are stored locally and not on gmails servers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
This isn't about Apple being concerned about being cut out of a little transactional income. This is about Apple being concerned about Google's control of the user experience and how that affects Apple in the long run.
Possibly very true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
It's also about why people are so foolish to hand over anything Google wants just because Google offers them a bit of candy.
It replaced nothing. That word was intentionally selected to invoke a response from the simple minded
And how is it that you 'know' this? Do you work for Google or the FCC or Apple?
The facts are simple. Apple stated in a document to the FCC which they also made public that GV REPLACES the UI. They could get in a lot of trouble for lying on that document and it was undoubtedly reviewed by a team of lawyers.
So do we believe that 'replaces' means 'replaces' which is what Apple's lawyers stated or should we believe a loud-mouthed anti-Apple whiner on a public forum who doesn't have any clue about the system, the approval process or any of the legalities of the matter?
As soon as you provide some evidence to back up your position, then maybe you'll have some credibility. Until then, I choose to believe that 'replace' means 'replace' rather than some wild conspiracy theory you've dreamed up.
Apple has never and still absolutely does not make an explicit or implicit agreement with an iPhone buyer that such buyer can add software to the iPhone, excepting what is already provided at purchase and what Apple will provide via future updates (implicitly over the useful life, which is accepted as 2 years) or since July 2008, through third parties via its App Store and iTunes. Buyers should have no expectation that they can add software in any other way. Apple is selling a smartphone - a phone, an iPod, a web browser, and access to its App Store/iTunes Store. It is not a PC.
This is a very different model than that used for PCs. In the PC model, it is now well accepted that the PC vendor is providing a platform (Windows, Mac OS, some form of Linux, etc) that is open to any software created for that platform. That might never have been explicit but it is well-accepted.
Given that Apple has never advertised or promised freedom (beyond iTunes/App Store) to add software to its iPhone (such as in the PC model), there is no restraint of trade relative to software for its iPhone. It is not a monopoly, but a vertically-integrated system, which is clearly allowed and supported by law.
Does your logic as you see it also apply to the iPod Touch, which involves no user contract and no third-party corporations like AT&T?
The first case you presented, by definition requires it to be secret. Google make no secret about their desire to provde an alternative to features offered natievly, on PC's Mac and cell phones. It also requires the desire to undermine or attempt to bring the 'downfall of an opponent'. Providing an alternative does not undermine Apple, especially if the native features are left in place for the user to use. providing an alternative is simply to provide the user with choice.
It's "secret" in the sense that Google does not publicly avow their desire to completely control the user experience of access to information -- your own information as well as what might be considered "public information" -- yet, it is clear from their actions that this is their goal; clear to anyone who examines the matter objectively, at least. It completely undermines Apple if Google controls this user experience, and in the long run, Google's success will undermine choice and privacy.
It's somewhat amazing to me that anyone could not see the danger that Google represents in this regard; although, many denied the danger from Microsoft in the past, so, I suppose I should not really be surprised in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
The second case, that it is a program designed to breach the security of a computer system barely requires a response. While you may feel that they want to collect all of your information for nefarious purposes, this is only your opinion. If you use google applications, you agree to their terms for the use of your data. I don't see anywhere in those terms that says they will use or abuse my data nor collect it without my consent. An at minimum, there is nothing that appears to breach any security, computer or otherwise.
Again, this "objection" is mostly a semantic quibble. Google's terms of service allow them to do pretty much whatever they want with your data, and they are subject to change at any time they decide they want to do something with it that might not be strictly allowed. Clearly, GV and all other Google apps and services serve, in the long run, a single purpose: to allow Google to collect as much user identifiable information about people as possible. The ones that don't really serve this purpose get dropped.
It "breaches the security" in the sense that most people don't even recognize the danger in what they are giving up -- i.e., it's a brilliant bit of social engineering that gets people to hand over pretty much everything there is to know about them without them even thinking about it or realizing what they have given away. In other words, when you hand over your contacts, email, telephony, documents, messaging, etc. to Google, you've been "hacked", and not only do you not realize it, you're actually left happy because they gave you a bit of tech candy to play with to divert your attention from what they just got you to do.
And how is it that you 'know' this? Do you work for Google or the FCC or Apple?
That it was intentional is my opinion. That the simple minded will misinterpret? Well, the proof is in the pudding.
Edit:How do I know what they meant by 'replace'? Easy. I can read. Try it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The facts are simple. Apple stated in a document to the FCC which they also made public that GV REPLACES the UI. They could get in a lot of trouble for lying on that document and it was undoubtedly reviewed by a team of lawyers.
So do we believe that 'replaces' means 'replaces' which is what Apple's lawyers stated or should we believe a loud-mouthed anti-Apple whiner on a public forum who doesn't have any clue about the system, the approval process or any of the legalities of the matter?
No, you should believe Apple. Please read their own examples of 'replacing'. They are quite clear and make no mention of their functionality being removed. So, by all means, believe them. They were clear in their example. And see if they describe their features being removed. They do not. They describe them being replaced by not being used.
To help you, merriam webster has a definition of 'replace' as the following:
to take the place of especially as a substitute or successor
As in, a user using the application would be using it as a substitute for the native features.
As I said, please read the statement yourself, but perhaps with someone to help you. It should not be as difficult as you want to make it.
As far as the rest of your inaccurate statements, well, no I am not an anti-Apple whiner. I have used Apple products since before there were Macs, quite likely long before you. I have been a member on these boards before you probably knew they existed and joined because I am a huge Apple fan. I have engaged in long debates defending Apple and their practices. But you should learn, being a fan does not mean having to be stupid. It does not mean turning of your brain. It does not mean having to always agree with Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
As soon as you provide some evidence to back up your position, then maybe you'll have some credibility. Until then, I choose to believe that 'replace' means 'replace' rather than some wild conspiracy theory you've dreamed up.
Again, it is all in their own statement. Just read the damn thing. If you are going to blindly defend Apple you look foolish. At least understand your own argument..also, try to actually understand the word 'replace'.
And I don't think you understand conspiracy. I never claimed they had a conspiracy. I do believe their choice of words were selected for people just like you.
I really think it quite simply two fold: Apple wants to preserve their built in functionality and not be outclassed by other programming options. They also want to preserve the revenue stream of the iPhones built in functionality for as long as possible. They realize that the future consists of a single iPhone data charge that covers all function of the phone over any network. That has it's competitive limits, and ultimately means less monthly revenue from the product > less interest from carriers > less flexability > less subsidy.
Agree that that's Apple's view of the future. Note that Apple at one time called the cell carriers "orifices" and expressed that Internet access over cellular should be like Internet access over wired (cable/fiber/satellite). Note that Apple wanted to sell the iPhone without subsidy, and insisted carriers offer "unlimited" data plans. Thus, I don't think Apple particularly cares to protect the current voice plan revenue stream. (Data is a different story as Apple would want to get a piece of that revenue stream.)
We also know that Apple is not afraid of cannibalizing its own product, but they do it on their own timetable, when they think the pieces are all in place (and of course, when there's enough profit margin and a large enough market to sell into). (In some cases like with Apple TV, they are wrong and are too soon, providing not enough functionality for the price.) But it also doesn't bother them that others rush in sooner with not-fully-thought-out-for-the-user solutions. Maybe GV falls into that category (i.e. Apple sees it as a half-baked solution because it's not fully integrated into the handsets apps), but in this case, Apple sees here a long-term strategic direction and something that they should fully integrate into their device, so as to eliminate user confusion (and underlying data confusion for other Apps). Thus, the delay. That's one possibility.
Another possibility is that Apple sees in GV the seed of its own demise (since it is currently dependent on subsidies from the carriers), so it sees no reason to be at the forefront of the revolution. Let it start on some other handset, while Apple works to prepare its next software update (where GV functionality is fully integrated) and handset for a world with lowered or no subsidies. One thing that points in this direction is the "coincidental" timing of the removal of Schmidt from Apple's board. I see it as Apple being more concerned about collusion with than competition against Google. There's a lot of interesting food for thought in this situation if people would get less emotional and think through what the potential outcomes could be.
Just to be clear, I'm all for GV-type functionality myself, assuming it was easy-to-use. I don't use iPhone SMS because it's not worth how much AT&T charges for it. And I don't use any of the SMS apps because they don't fully replicate the built-in SMS experience. And if Google's GV was available, I would install it, as I'm techy enough to make it work. But I can see Apple's concern with such an app for the mass market, as I could see it totally confusing my wife as to why she wouldn't tap Phone/Messages to make a phone call/SMS but tap GV instead. She'd say when I add a contact using Contacts, does it show up for GV? If I add a contact in GV, does it show up for Phone? And if it's yes to both of those, why doesn't it work the same way for received Voicemail or SMS messages? How many Apps do I need to check for Voicemail and Messages; why isn't it integrated?
Does your logic as you see it also apply to the iPod Touch, which involves no user contract and no third-party corporations like AT&T?
Yes, for the iPod touch, the first three parts (device, OS, apps) are just as vertically-integrated as for the iPhone. And the fourth part, broadband internet access is wifi-only, so it is not vertically-integrated at all. But even for cellular broadband, this fourth part is not always integrated, as Apple does sell the iPhone unlocked in some places.
After all, it's still called iPod and not Mac. And for iPods, Apple makes no representation that you can install software from sources other than its iTunes software, and its App Store. (Of course, you can drag files over from a Mac/PC in "hard disk mode", but they don't run.)
This is why I'm really curious as to whether the rumored Apple tablet is a Mac or an iPod, or an entirely new category. If it's an iPod, the bloggers and tech-nerds will go ape-shit all over again; we ain't seen nothin' yet.
The last part of your post comes very close to recognizing the real problem here, but your analysis makes the mistake of reversing the true position of the two companies.
There is pretty much zero danger, at the present time, of Apple controlling how people access information on a large scale. There is however, a great danger of Google doing so now and in the future. Google's intentions to control how you access information and what you can do with it, as well as who ultimately controls it, are on par with Microsoft's attempt to control how user's accessed the internet by undermining Netscape, and both companies were/are in a position to be able to do so; Apple is in no position to be able to do this widely, and should not be the focus of concern at this time.
The GV app, and all other Google apps, tools and services are all about controlling how you access information and what you can do with it, and what they can do with it. In that context, Apple's attempt to control the iPhone user experience (and it's not at all about revenue streams, per se) ought to be of very little concern to regulators.
Tulkas, the problem I have with you is your continued negative attitude toward virtually everything that Apple presents or to anything that its supporters may argue. No matter what.
How do you expect anybody from Apple to want to consider your points of view under such circumstances? The idea that Apple can do no right does not fly well in a home basically built by Apple and its followers.
Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner threw up because they didn't like how she cooked the turkey, that the portions were too small or why weren't they consulted on what best to serve.
As part the family, so to speak, wouldn't you expect the kids to stand up for her? They have every reason to do so. Moreso in fact than you have to be so disparaging.
Please do me a favor.
Reread the response to Question 1. There is nothing nefarious here. The app has yet to be rejected or approved. It is still being reviewed. This is not just any ordinary iPhone app. As was submitted for review, the iphone app does things nobody really has seen before, or knows how or what it does or can do. It just doesn't adhere fully to the the guidelines of the SDK as it has been written today. And trust the tens of thousands of us who have read and accepted the conditions that it has set forth, it is quite clearly described.
Not that it is doing something badly or illegally. It is just out of range of what was expected and thus Apple's request to ponder on these "…several new issues and questions…" that have been raised, certainly seems appropriate and justified.
As has been evidenced recently, much of the uproar re the iPhone App/Store has been basically to do for nothing. The fact that a couple of developers have spoken out, only to be basically silenced up to now, should tell us something. If Apple is lying, why isn't there an onslaught of counter statements, in particular, from those developers that were so vocal before?
Tulkas, the problem I have with you is your continued negative attitude toward virtually everything that Apple presents or to anything that its supporters may argue. No matter what.
That is as odd as it is strange. In general, as a huge Apple fan and long time customer, I generally have a very positive attitude towards Apple. That you see my attitude as consistently negative, likely reflects that you tend to hang out in threads that might even hint at criticizing Apple, their partners or policies. I will comment in some of these threads, sometimes to defend Apple and sometimes to criticize. It just depends on if I view their actions as right. I don't put aside my brain or ideals just because it involves Apple, as some zealots will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
How do you expect anybody from Apple to want to consider your points of view under such circumstances? The idea that Apple can do no right does not fly well in a home basically built by Apple and its followers.
The circumstances that I do openly criticize Apple? Generally, I would expect people to honestly weigh what I may say, ignore it or debate it. In some case, I expect some will just blindly reject anything the see as 'anti-Apple'. I don't have time for unthinking zealots.
It is very, very telling that you used the term 'Apple followers'. A company should have customers and perhaps fans..even hard core fans, which I would consider myself. A religion or cult has followers. Zealots among them are unreasonable and will defend regardless of right or wrong. Telling indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner threw up because they didn't like how she cooked the turkey, that the portions were too small or why weren't they consulted on what best to serve.
As part the family, so to speak, wouldn't you expect the kids to stand up for her? They have every reason to do so. Moreso in fact than you have to be so disparaging.
If her cooking is making everyone sick, she should be told. 'Standing up' for her and ignoring the problem is ignorant and will likely get someone killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Please do me a favor.
Reread the response to Question 1. There is nothing nefarious here. The app has yet to be rejected or approved. It is still being reviewed. This is not just any ordinary iPhone app. As was submitted for review, the iphone app does things nobody really has seen before, or knows how or what it does or can do. It just doesn't adhere fully to the the guidelines of the SDK as it has been written today. And trust the tens of thousands of us who have read and accepted the conditions that it has set forth, it is quite clearly described.
Agreed, except that if it did actually violate the terms of the SDK, then Apple would have said as much in the statement and would have rejected it outright instead of putting it into some state of limbo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Not that it is doing something badly or illegally. It is just out of range of what was expected and thus Apple's request to ponder on these "?several new issues and questions?" that have been raised, certainly seems appropriate and justified.
and this is the real reason. GV presents concerns they had not previously considered or accounted for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
As has been evidenced recently, much of the uproar re the iPhone App/Store has been basically to do for nothing. The fact that a couple of developers have spoken out, only to be basically silenced up to now, should tell us something. If Apple is lying, why isn't there an onslaught of counter statements, in particular, from those developers that were so vocal before?
I never said they were lying. Not all of the developers have been silenced, though some have been shown to be in the wrong and others, Apple has taken it upon themselves to review the issue again.
It is very, very telling that you used the term 'Apple followers'. A company should have customers and perhaps fans..even hard core fans, which I would consider myself. A religion or cult has followers. Zealots among them are unreasonable and will defend regardless of right or wrong. Telling indeed.
Apple has customers and fans. Followers are those that reside here along with the trollers.
Quote:
If her cooking is making everyone sick, she should be told. 'Standing up' for her and ignoring the problem is ignorant and will likely get someone killed.
'Threw up' was for poetic effect. Perhaps, overly criticize would have been better. How the food was cooked, how much was served or complaining for not being part of the menu making wouldn't kill anybody. Question is if they hate it so much, why do they keep coming back. But free-loaders do that don't they?
Quote:
Agreed, except that if it did actually violate the terms of the SDK, then Apple would have said as much in the statement and would have rejected it outright instead of putting it into some state of limbo.
But nobody said it did. And why is it in a 'state of limbo?
Quote:
I never said they were lying. Not all of the developers have been silenced, though some have been shown to be in the wrong and others, Apple has taken it upon themselves to review the issue again.
Virtually all have been shown in be in error. I would point out again, where are all of them now? One would expect some response to counter Apple's response if Apple was not telling he truth.
Comments
And yet, for all of that, Apple is encouraging them to do it as a web app, which will still duplicate those same functions. Maybe not as nicely, but it should do the job.
The web app could function as just as full a replacement, so why no problem there? Maybe it would be limited compared to the native app in some way. Certainly, the two examples Apple gave of replaced functionality, SMS and VVM, would benefit from being native, if only because of Push, which a web app wouldn't have.
Which is another good point.
It's my assumption that the web app will be less convienent to use and somehow more "limited" in some way, as you say. There's nothing like a native app, both for speed and ease of use. It would be hard (seems so, anyway) for a web app to trump a native app in that department, so Apple might feel less threatened in this regard.
See, this brings us into a new realm. While we want that "choice", at the same time we've got Apple's position on the matter (which is becoming a little clearer now), which is also understandable to a degree.
I agree with you when you say "Apple, don't be afraid of GV, just make what you offer even better." Sure, and I'd hope Apple does. But if GV does amount to some kind of infringement, then Apple might be less inclined to "compete", as GV isn't a competitor, but an infringement of some sort. But that's just one perspective, right? Apple is seeing whats possible here and might hopefully work with AT&T in bringing their own implementation of it to the table. But as pmz said, Apple might be reluctant to rock the AT&T boat just yet.
If Google wants to compete, then it might be better for them to offer this on a Google-based phone instead and *then* let the chips fall where they may. Because then, it isn't just about GV, but about the entire Google "user experience" that's also being put to the test. Perhaps in that case GV might be less popular, when it's wrapped in a Google interface.
This is just a lot of speculation, of course, but it's certainly helping me understand the deeper levels of this issue.
Tell that to Martha Stewart. Who cares if it's called "perjury" or "lying to investigators and obstruction of justice" when you are sitting in a jail cell. One of the charges against Stewart included the assertion that public statements she made (to no one in particular) declaring her innocence were part of a conspiracy to mislead investors.
False statements don't have to be "sworn", "under oath". or made to particular officials to get you into serious legal trouble.
True enough. But abster2core was very condesending when he said some people need an education in US law and then gave this lesson by explaining it was perjury. Which, by actual definition, it is not.
You can still get in trouble for it though.
I think so and is what I have been saying since the app was first rejected ( ok, not formally rejected but put into approval limbo). I would suggest to Apple, don't be afraid of GV. Beat them. Improve upon what you have and beat them. Of course, the real trojan horse is that the GV service (not the app) offer a lot for free that Apple will never be willing to offer for free (nor do I think the should) . But free is hard to beat so better to ban/delay the app?
OK, let's review Trojan Horses:
? figurative a person or thing intended secretly to undermine or bring about the downfall of an enemy or opponent.
? Computing a program designed to breach the security of a computer system while ostensibly performing some innocuous function.
-- from the OS X Dictionary app
The GV app is a Trojan Horse in both these senses:
- It's designed to undermine Apple's iPhone user experience by providing an alternative UI that replaces Apple's user experience with Google's. All of Google's services have this intent: to replace the native user experience on any platform with Google's.
- It's designed to capture as much user identifiable information as it can from each user so that Google can use that information for it's own purposes. Again, all Google's services have this intent: to capture as much information about you as they can so they can use that to serve their ends.
This is a very clear business strategy on Google's part. To undermine anyone that currently provides a computer user experience that Google can't control and to collect as much user identifiable information on everyone as they can.They do this by offering free services that require you to hand over your data -- you contacts, your email, your documents, your search habits, etc. -- then use your data for their purposes. Currently, they use this to sell ads. It's unlikely that they will stop at that (or that they don't go beyond it already).
This isn't about Apple being concerned about being cut out of a little transactional income. This is about Apple being concerned about Google's control of the user experience and how that affects Apple in the long run.
It's also about why people are so foolish to hand over anything Google wants just because Google offers them a bit of candy.
Funny how Mac basher are incapable of anything more than the same old, tired ad hominem attacks.
Did it ever occur to you to debate the topic rationally as most of Apple's defenders are?
I "debated the topic rationally" (Comment #61, page 2), and while my post could be called windy or worse, and no one has an obligation to respond directly to anyone else - and I am and will continue to be a Mac user - I did respectfully raise real issues which effect all iPhone and Touch users, and almost no "Apple defenders" have bothered to even deal with many of them anywhere in this discussion.
So it's "funny" how many A-fans seem incapable of going beyond parroting the company line, even if it is still my favorite tech company after all these years.
(Not to say much of the discussion hasn't been interesting within its bounds.)
Anyway, I may be a pundit without portfolio simply pouting about being ignored, but my point is it can be useful to both customers and company to admire without suspending the faculty of rational criticism and plugging one's ears when people bring up "inconvenient truths" you don't want to hear.
Apple has never and still absolutely does not make an explicit or implicit agreement with an iPhone buyer that such buyer can add software to the iPhone, excepting what is already provided at purchase and what Apple will provide via future updates (implicitly over the useful life, which is accepted as 2 years) or since July 2008, through third parties via its App Store and iTunes. Buyers should have no expectation that they can add software in any other way. Apple is selling a smartphone - a phone, an iPod, a web browser, and access to its App Store/iTunes Store. It is not a PC.
This is a very different model than that used for PCs. In the PC model, it is now well accepted that the PC vendor is providing a platform (Windows, Mac OS, some form of Linux, etc) that is open to any software created for that platform. That might never have been explicit but it is well-accepted.
Given that Apple has never advertised or promised freedom (beyond iTunes/App Store) to add software to its iPhone (such as in the PC model), there is no restraint of trade relative to software for its iPhone. It is not a monopoly, but a vertically-integrated system, which is clearly allowed and supported by law.
AT&T's submittal lays out that there are four parts involved: wireless device (iPhone), operating system (iPhone OS), applications (iTunes Store), and Internet connectivity (provided by AT&T). Apple is vertically-integrating the first three by itself, and partnering with AT&T to vertically-integrate the fourth part. The following is from AT&T's submittal, footnote 12, referring to part 4 (AT&T and Apple), but it applies equally as well within Apple's own system (parts 1-3).
"See Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36, 54-55, 57-58 (1977) (?Vertical restrictions promote interbrand competition by allowing the manufacturer to achieve certain efficiencies in the distribution of his products. These ?redeeming virtues? are implicit in every decision sustaining vertical restrictions under the rule of reason. Economists have identified a number of ways in which manufacturers can use such restrictions to compete more effectively against other manufacturers? ? such as inducing retailers to make ?investment of capital and labor? or ?engage in promotional activities,? as well as ensuring product quality and preventing free riding. ?Such restrictions, in varying forms, are widely used in our free market economy. . . . [T]here is substantial scholarly and judicial authority supporting their economic utility. There is relatively little authority to the contrary.?). See also Richard J. Wegener, et al, Restricted Distribution 2009: Thirtysomething Sylvania and the State of Non-Price Vertical Restraints, American Law Institute ? American Bar Association, SP050 ALI-ABA 43 (March 2009); William J. Kolasky, Jr., Antitrust Enforcement Guidelines for Strategic Alliances, Practicing Law Institute (July-August 1998)."
Again, if you don't like this vertically-integrated system of 3 parts or 4 parts, you are free to choose a wireless device alternative where only 2 parts are tied (device and OS) by a vendor, such as an unlocked HTC Android or Nokia Symbian or RIM Blackberry.
Appreciate your thoughtful response, Mark. I am not a lawyer but it seems important to me to note that Continental TV did not overturn any anti-competitive provision of the Sherman Anti-trust act. It affirmed an appeals court decision that Sylania was not violating Sherman "per se" as Continental had argued. The scope of the decision did not encompass "rule of reason" since that had not been originally argued.
The end result of Apple's marketing scheme is that developers have only one place to sell their iphone software, Apple. Any innovation that may run contrary to Apple's throttle hold on development or endangers theirs or ATT's revenue streams regardless of benefit for the end consumer falls into a black hole.
Apple thinks it can get away with it, and with most of the California delegation in their pocket one way or the other perhaps they can. But I am telling you that I want to be able to make use of the centralized number approach that Google offers with their product, and most particularly, something ATT completely denies me, the ability to block specific callers (telemarketers). The anti-competitive nature of Apple's scheme is preventing this benefit for all iphone users. The rise of the corporatocracy since Reagan/Clinton has encouraged big outfits like Apple to reason that they can get away with pretty much anything they want. And with forum members such as found here mouthing the oft repeated sentiment that its "Apple's phone and they can do what they damned well want with it," it is little wonder to me that Apple should think this way. But I goddamn beg to differ. The iphone is sold in a system to members of a society. Apple gets taxpayer funded benefits that protects their inventions from unlicensed use, protects their exclusive use of publicly owned spectra, and provides all of the infrastructure that allows Apple to exist as a concern. Apple is not entirely free to do whatever in the hell it wants with its product. It has to conform to law.
Personally I do not care HOW many poorly applicable cites the shyster from ATT pulls out of his pants, Apple is engaged in anti-competitive behavior with the App Store on the one hand and the threat of a bricked phone in the other. Consumers are being denied fully functional flash sites and several other benefits solely due to Apple's monopolistic market in applications and the only reason for it is protection of the Apple revenue stream from competing innovation.
The saddest part of this is that the reason the government was provoked into this (admitedly limp) action was because the complainant is Google. I am no more enthused about Google's ability to command the attention of the FCC than I am about Apple's. They are both huge corporations and should be monitored closely for malfeasance by regulators, not be given the key to the city every time they desire government intrusion for their personal benefit.
You keep calling it perjury and even sought to educate your fellow members here on US law...but I don't think you really know what the word means.
Note any statements in the responses being made while sworn or under oath? Were they made to a member of congress or the judiciary while under oath?
Lying to the FCC, while not under oath or in a sworn affidavit would likely result in fines or other sanctions. It's not perjury.
You are correct in part.
As I originally posted, i.e., For those of you who have denigrated comments by accusing Apple of lying, perhaps a little course on your judicial system is in order. To openly declare that Apple would overtly commit perjury is a testament of not only ignorance but stupidity." was in a general response to a comment made earlier:
This response is a lie. ?But here's the lucky part for Apple: the FCC, FTC, and just about every other govt. regulatory body charged with oversight of corporate behavior are so full of cowards and layabouts that nothing substantive will come of any of this no matter how much Apple lies in depositions.
I had taken the letter from Apple as being a deposition, and as by definition, a deposition is taken under oath.
However, now having access to the letters to the FCC, it would appear that although they are not depositions, lying to their questions in any format could have serious consequences. One that Apple would surely consider in light of their need to cooperate with the agency if they ever wanted to continue to provide products that need their approval.
And if Apple were to be subpoenaed in front of the FCC and lied under oath in testimony, depositions or supported materials, it would be perjury.
"In the United States, for example,?The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official."
The anti-competitive nature of Apple's scheme is preventing this benefit for all iphone users. The rise of the corporatocracy since Reagan/Clinton has encouraged big outfits like Apple to reason that they can get away with pretty much anything they want. And with forum members such as found here mouthing the oft repeated sentiment that its "Apple's phone and they can do what they damned well want with it," it is little wonder to me that Apple should think this way. But I goddamn beg to differ. The iphone is sold in a system to members of a society. Apple gets taxpayer funded benefits that protects their inventions from unlicensed use, protects their exclusive use of publicly owned spectra, and provides all of the infrastructure that allows Apple to exist as a concern. Apple is not entirely free to do whatever in the hell it wants with its product. It has to conform to law.
[...]
The saddest part of this is that the reason the government was provoked into this (admitedly limp) action was because the complainant is Google. I am no more enthused about Google's ability to command the attention of the FCC than I am about Apple's. They are both huge corporations and should be monitored closely for malfeasance by regulators, not be given the key to the city every time they desire government intrusion for their personal benefit.
The last part of your post comes very close to recognizing the real problem here, but your analysis makes the mistake of reversing the true position of the two companies.
There is pretty much zero danger, at the present time, of Apple controlling how people access information on a large scale. There is however, a great danger of Google doing so now and in the future. Google's intentions to control how you access information and what you can do with it, as well as who ultimately controls it, are on par with Microsoft's attempt to control how user's accessed the internet by undermining Netscape, and both companies were/are in a position to be able to do so; Apple is in no position to be able to do this widely, and should not be the focus of concern at this time.
The GV app, and all other Google apps, tools and services are all about controlling how you access information and what you can do with it, and what they can do with it. In that context, Apple's attempt to control the iPhone user experience (and it's not at all about revenue streams, per se) ought to be of very little concern to regulators.
You are correct in part.
As I originally posted, i.e., For those of you who have denigrated comments by accusing Apple of lying, perhaps a little course on your judicial system is in order. To openly declare that Apple would overtly commit perjury is a testament of not only ignorance but stupidity." was in a general response to a comment made earlier:
I had taken the letter from Apple as being a deposition, and as by definition, a deposition is taken under oath.
However, now having access to the letters to the FCC, it would appear that although they are not depositions, lying to their questions in any format could have serious consequences. One that Apple would surely consider in light of their need to cooperate with the agency if they ever wanted to continue to provide products that need their approval.
And if Apple were to be subpoenaed in front of the FCC and lied under oath in testimony, depositions or supported materials, it would be perjury.
"In the United States, for example,?The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official."
Absolutely. A charge of perjury then comes down to whether Apple believed or had reason to believe they were giving their response under penalty of perjury or under oath. I don't see anything in the request for information or response that would make me believe they were or thought they were, but it is possible. Regardless of if it would be legally defined as perjury, lying to the FCC in a formal response would and should carry penalties. They are a government regulatory body and as such has the authority to sanction and penalize a company for lying, which would not be in Apple's best interests, as they rely on the FCC for approval.
In any event, I do not think Apple lied in their response. I do think they intentionally gave answers that could be misleading. For example, their use of the word 'replace'. Even though they clearly and only give examples of their "UI being replaced" that show they mean replaced as in given an alternative, many interpret it as meaning Apple functionality is actually removed and replaced by Google's app. This is obviously not the case with even a cursory reading, but none the less, it has been interpreted as such by some.
Actually, even their examples are misleading.
For example, on an iPhone, the ?Phone? icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple?s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple?s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple?s Visual Voicemail
They state that the GV app would replace Apple's VVM, intentionally leading some to take it to mean the Apple VVM is removed. But then they continue to explain that they mean it is actually replaced because calls are routed through a separate GV telephone number that stores the voice mail. This makes it sound like calls are being rerouted to the GV phone number, when in fact the calls that go to the GV Voice Mail system are only calls that were made to the GV phone number. It would be identical to you using an app that allowed you to retrieve voice main left on your home answering machine, which were left when people called your home phone number. The only difference is that the GV service first rings your home phone or work phone or iPhone. If anyone direct dials your cell phone number, their messages will be left on your Apple VVM server. Nothing is rerouted in that sense and Apple's VVM is clearly not disabled, as they state, just made redundant with a free service. It is 'disabled' only in the sense that if it isn't used, it is disabled. Note that they say 'disabled' as an example of the voice mail being stored elsewhere. Denying or delaying the app for this reason would be the same as denying an app that automated listening to you home answering machine.
Their second example is similarly misleading.
Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub?replacing the iPhone?s text messaging feature.
Again, the iPhones text messaging feature is only replaced if a user choose not to use it and exclusively uses the GV SMS feature. Any SMS that are sent to your iPhone phone number will appear in the iPhones built in messaging app. The GV receives only SMS sent to your GV number. Someone not paying attention, might read the work 'replacing' and think it meant the iPhone's Messages app was removed. But again, it is only 'replaced' in the sense that a user can use it as a replacement. They could opt to use both or neither or the built in option.
Then there is their statement about the user contacts list on the iPhone.
In addition, the iPhone user?s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google?s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways.
Unbelievably, some have read this to mean the contacts data is sent to Google without the user's consent or knowledge. This is the most vexing misreading or intentional fabrication. It obviously says nothing of the sort. While this could be the case, I would have my doubts. Whether it is the case or not, Apple's statement certainly contains no such accusation.
They state that they "have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways". This is an incredibly vague statement. Did they even request this consent from Google? If they did, what reason would Google have for not giving such assurances? If Google was the malevolent entity that some believe them to be, why would they not simply give the assurances and then break their word? What is Apple's definition of 'appropriate'? I am sure Google feels they would only use it appropriately, even if we or Apple would not.
Again, I don't think Apple actually lied in their statement to the FCC. I think the were intentionally vague and used language that was open to interpretation, with the knowledge that some would misconstrue the meaning.
OK, let's review Trojan Horses:
? figurative a person or thing intended secretly to undermine or bring about the downfall of an enemy or opponent.
? Computing a program designed to breach the security of a computer system while ostensibly performing some innocuous function.
-- from the OS X Dictionary app
The GV app is a Trojan Horse in both these senses:
I would disagree with both of your interpretations, but in either case at that point it comes down to opinion. In my limited personal experience, I have no reason to believe in the benevolence or malevolevnce of either Google of Apple.
The first case you presented, by definition requires it to be secret. Google make no secret about their desire to provde an alternative to features offered natievly, on PC's Mac and cell phones. It also requires the desire to undermine or attempt to bring the 'downfall of an opponent'. Providing an alternative does not undermine Apple, especially if the native features are left in place for the user to use. providing an alternative is simply to provide the user with choice.
The second case, that it is a program designed to breach the security of a computer system barely requires a response. While you may feel that they want to collect all of your information for nefarious purposes, this is only your opinion. If you use google applications, you agree to their terms for the use of your data. I don't see anywhere in those terms that says they will use or abuse my data nor collect it without my consent. An at minimum, there is nothing that appears to breach any security, computer or otherwise.
This is a very clear business strategy on Google's part. To undermine anyone that currently provides a computer user experience that Google can't control and to collect as much user identifiable information on everyone as they can.
They do this by offering free services that require you to hand over your data -- you contacts, your email, your documents, your search habits, etc. -- then use your data for their purposes. Currently, they use this to sell ads. It's unlikely that they will stop at that (or that they don't go beyond it already).
This is opinion and does not seem entirely based on fact. The only have access to documents that you store on their systems and they are clear in their terms that you retain ownership of them. Also, contacts are only made available to them if you make them available. I have a grand total of 3 contacts in my GMail account, and they are only there because they aee friends that use gmail. All of my other contacts are stored locally and not on gmails servers.
This isn't about Apple being concerned about being cut out of a little transactional income. This is about Apple being concerned about Google's control of the user experience and how that affects Apple in the long run.
Possibly very true.
It's also about why people are so foolish to hand over anything Google wants just because Google offers them a bit of candy.
This is good advise for any service or company.
It replaced nothing. That word was intentionally selected to invoke a response from the simple minded
And how is it that you 'know' this? Do you work for Google or the FCC or Apple?
The facts are simple. Apple stated in a document to the FCC which they also made public that GV REPLACES the UI. They could get in a lot of trouble for lying on that document and it was undoubtedly reviewed by a team of lawyers.
So do we believe that 'replaces' means 'replaces' which is what Apple's lawyers stated or should we believe a loud-mouthed anti-Apple whiner on a public forum who doesn't have any clue about the system, the approval process or any of the legalities of the matter?
As soon as you provide some evidence to back up your position, then maybe you'll have some credibility. Until then, I choose to believe that 'replace' means 'replace' rather than some wild conspiracy theory you've dreamed up.
Originally Posted by mark2005
Apple has never and still absolutely does not make an explicit or implicit agreement with an iPhone buyer that such buyer can add software to the iPhone, excepting what is already provided at purchase and what Apple will provide via future updates (implicitly over the useful life, which is accepted as 2 years) or since July 2008, through third parties via its App Store and iTunes. Buyers should have no expectation that they can add software in any other way. Apple is selling a smartphone - a phone, an iPod, a web browser, and access to its App Store/iTunes Store. It is not a PC.
This is a very different model than that used for PCs. In the PC model, it is now well accepted that the PC vendor is providing a platform (Windows, Mac OS, some form of Linux, etc) that is open to any software created for that platform. That might never have been explicit but it is well-accepted.
Given that Apple has never advertised or promised freedom (beyond iTunes/App Store) to add software to its iPhone (such as in the PC model), there is no restraint of trade relative to software for its iPhone. It is not a monopoly, but a vertically-integrated system, which is clearly allowed and supported by law.
Does your logic as you see it also apply to the iPod Touch, which involves no user contract and no third-party corporations like AT&T?
The first case you presented, by definition requires it to be secret. Google make no secret about their desire to provde an alternative to features offered natievly, on PC's Mac and cell phones. It also requires the desire to undermine or attempt to bring the 'downfall of an opponent'. Providing an alternative does not undermine Apple, especially if the native features are left in place for the user to use. providing an alternative is simply to provide the user with choice.
It's "secret" in the sense that Google does not publicly avow their desire to completely control the user experience of access to information -- your own information as well as what might be considered "public information" -- yet, it is clear from their actions that this is their goal; clear to anyone who examines the matter objectively, at least. It completely undermines Apple if Google controls this user experience, and in the long run, Google's success will undermine choice and privacy.
It's somewhat amazing to me that anyone could not see the danger that Google represents in this regard; although, many denied the danger from Microsoft in the past, so, I suppose I should not really be surprised in this case.
The second case, that it is a program designed to breach the security of a computer system barely requires a response. While you may feel that they want to collect all of your information for nefarious purposes, this is only your opinion. If you use google applications, you agree to their terms for the use of your data. I don't see anywhere in those terms that says they will use or abuse my data nor collect it without my consent. An at minimum, there is nothing that appears to breach any security, computer or otherwise.
Again, this "objection" is mostly a semantic quibble. Google's terms of service allow them to do pretty much whatever they want with your data, and they are subject to change at any time they decide they want to do something with it that might not be strictly allowed. Clearly, GV and all other Google apps and services serve, in the long run, a single purpose: to allow Google to collect as much user identifiable information about people as possible. The ones that don't really serve this purpose get dropped.
It "breaches the security" in the sense that most people don't even recognize the danger in what they are giving up -- i.e., it's a brilliant bit of social engineering that gets people to hand over pretty much everything there is to know about them without them even thinking about it or realizing what they have given away. In other words, when you hand over your contacts, email, telephony, documents, messaging, etc. to Google, you've been "hacked", and not only do you not realize it, you're actually left happy because they gave you a bit of tech candy to play with to divert your attention from what they just got you to do.
And how is it that you 'know' this? Do you work for Google or the FCC or Apple?
That it was intentional is my opinion. That the simple minded will misinterpret? Well, the proof is in the pudding.
Edit:How do I know what they meant by 'replace'? Easy. I can read. Try it.
The facts are simple. Apple stated in a document to the FCC which they also made public that GV REPLACES the UI. They could get in a lot of trouble for lying on that document and it was undoubtedly reviewed by a team of lawyers.
So do we believe that 'replaces' means 'replaces' which is what Apple's lawyers stated or should we believe a loud-mouthed anti-Apple whiner on a public forum who doesn't have any clue about the system, the approval process or any of the legalities of the matter?
No, you should believe Apple. Please read their own examples of 'replacing'. They are quite clear and make no mention of their functionality being removed. So, by all means, believe them. They were clear in their example. And see if they describe their features being removed. They do not. They describe them being replaced by not being used.
To help you, merriam webster has a definition of 'replace' as the following:
to take the place of especially as a substitute or successor
As in, a user using the application would be using it as a substitute for the native features.
As I said, please read the statement yourself, but perhaps with someone to help you. It should not be as difficult as you want to make it.
As far as the rest of your inaccurate statements, well, no I am not an anti-Apple whiner. I have used Apple products since before there were Macs, quite likely long before you. I have been a member on these boards before you probably knew they existed and joined because I am a huge Apple fan. I have engaged in long debates defending Apple and their practices. But you should learn, being a fan does not mean having to be stupid. It does not mean turning of your brain. It does not mean having to always agree with Apple.
As soon as you provide some evidence to back up your position, then maybe you'll have some credibility. Until then, I choose to believe that 'replace' means 'replace' rather than some wild conspiracy theory you've dreamed up.
Again, it is all in their own statement. Just read the damn thing. If you are going to blindly defend Apple you look foolish. At least understand your own argument..also, try to actually understand the word 'replace'.
And I don't think you understand conspiracy. I never claimed they had a conspiracy. I do believe their choice of words were selected for people just like you.
I really think it quite simply two fold: Apple wants to preserve their built in functionality and not be outclassed by other programming options. They also want to preserve the revenue stream of the iPhones built in functionality for as long as possible. They realize that the future consists of a single iPhone data charge that covers all function of the phone over any network. That has it's competitive limits, and ultimately means less monthly revenue from the product > less interest from carriers > less flexability > less subsidy.
Agree that that's Apple's view of the future. Note that Apple at one time called the cell carriers "orifices" and expressed that Internet access over cellular should be like Internet access over wired (cable/fiber/satellite). Note that Apple wanted to sell the iPhone without subsidy, and insisted carriers offer "unlimited" data plans. Thus, I don't think Apple particularly cares to protect the current voice plan revenue stream. (Data is a different story as Apple would want to get a piece of that revenue stream.)
We also know that Apple is not afraid of cannibalizing its own product, but they do it on their own timetable, when they think the pieces are all in place (and of course, when there's enough profit margin and a large enough market to sell into). (In some cases like with Apple TV, they are wrong and are too soon, providing not enough functionality for the price.) But it also doesn't bother them that others rush in sooner with not-fully-thought-out-for-the-user solutions. Maybe GV falls into that category (i.e. Apple sees it as a half-baked solution because it's not fully integrated into the handsets apps), but in this case, Apple sees here a long-term strategic direction and something that they should fully integrate into their device, so as to eliminate user confusion (and underlying data confusion for other Apps). Thus, the delay. That's one possibility.
Another possibility is that Apple sees in GV the seed of its own demise (since it is currently dependent on subsidies from the carriers), so it sees no reason to be at the forefront of the revolution. Let it start on some other handset, while Apple works to prepare its next software update (where GV functionality is fully integrated) and handset for a world with lowered or no subsidies. One thing that points in this direction is the "coincidental" timing of the removal of Schmidt from Apple's board. I see it as Apple being more concerned about collusion with than competition against Google. There's a lot of interesting food for thought in this situation if people would get less emotional and think through what the potential outcomes could be.
Just to be clear, I'm all for GV-type functionality myself, assuming it was easy-to-use. I don't use iPhone SMS because it's not worth how much AT&T charges for it. And I don't use any of the SMS apps because they don't fully replicate the built-in SMS experience. And if Google's GV was available, I would install it, as I'm techy enough to make it work. But I can see Apple's concern with such an app for the mass market, as I could see it totally confusing my wife as to why she wouldn't tap Phone/Messages to make a phone call/SMS but tap GV instead. She'd say when I add a contact using Contacts, does it show up for GV? If I add a contact in GV, does it show up for Phone? And if it's yes to both of those, why doesn't it work the same way for received Voicemail or SMS messages? How many Apps do I need to check for Voicemail and Messages; why isn't it integrated?
Does your logic as you see it also apply to the iPod Touch, which involves no user contract and no third-party corporations like AT&T?
Yes, for the iPod touch, the first three parts (device, OS, apps) are just as vertically-integrated as for the iPhone. And the fourth part, broadband internet access is wifi-only, so it is not vertically-integrated at all. But even for cellular broadband, this fourth part is not always integrated, as Apple does sell the iPhone unlocked in some places.
After all, it's still called iPod and not Mac. And for iPods, Apple makes no representation that you can install software from sources other than its iTunes software, and its App Store. (Of course, you can drag files over from a Mac/PC in "hard disk mode", but they don't run.)
This is why I'm really curious as to whether the rumored Apple tablet is a Mac or an iPod, or an entirely new category. If it's an iPod, the bloggers and tech-nerds will go ape-shit all over again; we ain't seen nothin' yet.
The last part of your post comes very close to recognizing the real problem here, but your analysis makes the mistake of reversing the true position of the two companies.
There is pretty much zero danger, at the present time, of Apple controlling how people access information on a large scale. There is however, a great danger of Google doing so now and in the future. Google's intentions to control how you access information and what you can do with it, as well as who ultimately controls it, are on par with Microsoft's attempt to control how user's accessed the internet by undermining Netscape, and both companies were/are in a position to be able to do so; Apple is in no position to be able to do this widely, and should not be the focus of concern at this time.
The GV app, and all other Google apps, tools and services are all about controlling how you access information and what you can do with it, and what they can do with it. In that context, Apple's attempt to control the iPhone user experience (and it's not at all about revenue streams, per se) ought to be of very little concern to regulators.
Bingo.
How do you expect anybody from Apple to want to consider your points of view under such circumstances? The idea that Apple can do no right does not fly well in a home basically built by Apple and its followers.
Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner threw up because they didn't like how she cooked the turkey, that the portions were too small or why weren't they consulted on what best to serve.
As part the family, so to speak, wouldn't you expect the kids to stand up for her? They have every reason to do so. Moreso in fact than you have to be so disparaging.
Please do me a favor.
Reread the response to Question 1. There is nothing nefarious here. The app has yet to be rejected or approved. It is still being reviewed. This is not just any ordinary iPhone app. As was submitted for review, the iphone app does things nobody really has seen before, or knows how or what it does or can do. It just doesn't adhere fully to the the guidelines of the SDK as it has been written today. And trust the tens of thousands of us who have read and accepted the conditions that it has set forth, it is quite clearly described.
Not that it is doing something badly or illegally. It is just out of range of what was expected and thus Apple's request to ponder on these "…several new issues and questions…" that have been raised, certainly seems appropriate and justified.
As has been evidenced recently, much of the uproar re the iPhone App/Store has been basically to do for nothing. The fact that a couple of developers have spoken out, only to be basically silenced up to now, should tell us something. If Apple is lying, why isn't there an onslaught of counter statements, in particular, from those developers that were so vocal before?
Tulkas, the problem I have with you is your continued negative attitude toward virtually everything that Apple presents or to anything that its supporters may argue. No matter what.
That is as odd as it is strange. In general, as a huge Apple fan and long time customer, I generally have a very positive attitude towards Apple. That you see my attitude as consistently negative, likely reflects that you tend to hang out in threads that might even hint at criticizing Apple, their partners or policies. I will comment in some of these threads, sometimes to defend Apple and sometimes to criticize. It just depends on if I view their actions as right. I don't put aside my brain or ideals just because it involves Apple, as some zealots will.
How do you expect anybody from Apple to want to consider your points of view under such circumstances? The idea that Apple can do no right does not fly well in a home basically built by Apple and its followers.
The circumstances that I do openly criticize Apple? Generally, I would expect people to honestly weigh what I may say, ignore it or debate it. In some case, I expect some will just blindly reject anything the see as 'anti-Apple'. I don't have time for unthinking zealots.
It is very, very telling that you used the term 'Apple followers'. A company should have customers and perhaps fans..even hard core fans, which I would consider myself. A religion or cult has followers. Zealots among them are unreasonable and will defend regardless of right or wrong. Telling indeed.
Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner threw up because they didn't like how she cooked the turkey, that the portions were too small or why weren't they consulted on what best to serve.
As part the family, so to speak, wouldn't you expect the kids to stand up for her? They have every reason to do so. Moreso in fact than you have to be so disparaging.
If her cooking is making everyone sick, she should be told. 'Standing up' for her and ignoring the problem is ignorant and will likely get someone killed.
Please do me a favor.
Reread the response to Question 1. There is nothing nefarious here. The app has yet to be rejected or approved. It is still being reviewed. This is not just any ordinary iPhone app. As was submitted for review, the iphone app does things nobody really has seen before, or knows how or what it does or can do. It just doesn't adhere fully to the the guidelines of the SDK as it has been written today. And trust the tens of thousands of us who have read and accepted the conditions that it has set forth, it is quite clearly described.
Agreed, except that if it did actually violate the terms of the SDK, then Apple would have said as much in the statement and would have rejected it outright instead of putting it into some state of limbo.
Not that it is doing something badly or illegally. It is just out of range of what was expected and thus Apple's request to ponder on these "?several new issues and questions?" that have been raised, certainly seems appropriate and justified.
and this is the real reason. GV presents concerns they had not previously considered or accounted for.
As has been evidenced recently, much of the uproar re the iPhone App/Store has been basically to do for nothing. The fact that a couple of developers have spoken out, only to be basically silenced up to now, should tell us something. If Apple is lying, why isn't there an onslaught of counter statements, in particular, from those developers that were so vocal before?
I never said they were lying. Not all of the developers have been silenced, though some have been shown to be in the wrong and others, Apple has taken it upon themselves to review the issue again.
It is very, very telling that you used the term 'Apple followers'. A company should have customers and perhaps fans..even hard core fans, which I would consider myself. A religion or cult has followers. Zealots among them are unreasonable and will defend regardless of right or wrong. Telling indeed.
Apple has customers and fans. Followers are those that reside here along with the trollers.
If her cooking is making everyone sick, she should be told. 'Standing up' for her and ignoring the problem is ignorant and will likely get someone killed.
'Threw up' was for poetic effect. Perhaps, overly criticize would have been better. How the food was cooked, how much was served or complaining for not being part of the menu making wouldn't kill anybody. Question is if they hate it so much, why do they keep coming back. But free-loaders do that don't they?
Agreed, except that if it did actually violate the terms of the SDK, then Apple would have said as much in the statement and would have rejected it outright instead of putting it into some state of limbo.
But nobody said it did. And why is it in a 'state of limbo?
I never said they were lying. Not all of the developers have been silenced, though some have been shown to be in the wrong and others, Apple has taken it upon themselves to review the issue again.
Virtually all have been shown in be in error. I would point out again, where are all of them now? One would expect some response to counter Apple's response if Apple was not telling he truth.