Google Voice was not developed with the iPhone as a target for competition. It just so happens that Google Voice offers things the iPhone does not on its own; it is a compelling and free product that Apple is too scared to allow as fair competition.
Yes. because Android is not a competing product...
Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...
Apple has customers and fans. Followers are those that reside here along with the trollers.
See, again. very telling. 'Follower' see 'them' and 'us'. That is the problem with fanhood turning into a religion.
As someone who has 'resided' here for many, many years more than you, I can say that there certainly are followers and trolls and haters. There are also fans, critics, passer-bys, etc. It is more than black and white. Apple does not always happen to be right, just because they are Apple.
It used to be funny when people said I was a Mac zealot. The way some of the new wave of Apple fans act, it has taken on a new meaning. Less cute nick name and more actual description. Cultist might be a better term for some. Scary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
'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?
If those 'free-loaders' have given over a large portion of their disposable income to 'mom', them mom should be open to suggestions. And her family should be mature enough to recognize when those criticisms are valid instead of throwing a fit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
But nobody said it did. And why is it in a 'state of limbo?
So then you assumed it?
limbo, as in neither here nor there, neither hot nor cold, neither approved nor rejected. "Still under review" and "pondering". Limbo.
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.
I see. So 'example' is another one of those words that you want to create your own meaning for.
If I say that I have owned a number of cars and as an example, my current car is red, would you infer that EVERY car I've ever owned is red? Of course not, but that's how you're trying to interpret Apple's statement.
Similarly, just because the examples Apple gave behaved in a certain way does not mean that EVERY app behaves in the same way. They are EXAMPLES.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yes. because Android is not a competing product...
Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...
Ding, ding, ding, ding.... You win the kewpie doll.
Interesting that the Mac bashers seem to forget that simple issue.
It's OK for them to call Apple a 'phone monopoly' when there are 6 major phone platforms and Apple has a single digit market share, but it's OK for Google to have the overwhelming lion's share of search advertising revenue - and then using that money to expand into other markets.
So think and make your own decision and buy a different phone.
No, thanks for the offer anyway. I am quite happy with the iPhone. Disappointed with some of Apple recent policies, but still a Mac/Apple fan and likely will always be.
Why do some people always need to resort this idiot response? What are we, five again? Going to take your toys and go home next?
There seems to be some basic misunderstandings of what Google Voice is as a service...forget about Apps for a second. For the record I am a Google Voice (the service) user.
Google Voice "The Service" gives you all these features -- SMS, Voicemail transciption, etc. If you are a user of Google Voice "The Service" all of your voicemails are going to Google Voice mailbox, etc. This is entirely distinct from anything your phone does, any applications on your phone, what type of phone you have, etc.
Apples local Iphone centric features are replaced by the user signing up for Google Voice "The Service"...which anyone can do. When you sign up for Google Voice the service, it is because you want to use Google Voice the service, because Google Voice the service offers very nice call management. As a Google Voice user, you explicitly do not want to use local, native management features, that is why you signed up for Google Voice the service.
ALL of the above -- is completely separate from having a Google Voice app on your phone. As a user of Google Voice, you are using Google Voice the service whether or not you have any App installed anywhere, you use it on your home phone, you use it on your business phones, and you use it on your cell phone. Your incoming calls are coming through Google Voice, your voicemails are being taken by Google Voice, etc. It's a phone management tool.
What the App does is give you easy access to your Google Voice account, as has been mentioned getting notified when you get voicemails, etc, and making it slightly easier to call out using Google Voice the service. But regardless of whether you have an app or not, using Apples phraseology as soon as you signed up for and began using Google Voice the service, you already "Replaced" things like the Iphone VVM. Apple has zero control over that.
Google releasing an app for the Iphone is to make it easier to access and use Google Voice the service from the Iphone. Apple blocking the app from the Iphone is to make it less pleasant for Iphone users to access Google Voice the service. But just so everyone is clear, things like VVM are "replaced" either way -- whether there is an app or not, the service takes care of all that.
Why do some people always need to resort this idiot response? What are we, five again? Going to take your toys and go home next?
The response ('if you don't like Apple/AT&T, then buy a different phone') was right on the money.
Apple offers a product. You get to choose to buy it or not to buy it. That is the extent of your freedom and that's how a free market works. You do NOT have the authority to dictate how Apple should sell or support the product.
Yes. because Android is not a competing product...
Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...
So you'll give up Google Search in Safari on the iPHone?
You'll give up YouTube on the iPHone?
And probably the most used App on any phone ever. You'll give up Google Maps and directions on the iPHone.
Google has already "dumped" all of the Free Apps as you call them on the iPhone and iPhone users love them.
If you're going to trash someone take a look at your own iPhone and see how much you already rely on Google and would be willing to give up if Google decided to pull them from your phone.
No, thanks for the offer anyway. I am quite happy with the iPhone. Disappointed with some of Apple recent policies, but still a Mac/Apple fan and likely will always be.
Why do some people always need to resort this idiot response? What are we, five again? Going to take your toys and go home next?
Because companies change behavior most often when revenues take a hit.
Besides, being outraged without the moral conviction to actually change your own behavior to influence the company in question is equally if not more idiotic and certainly far less deserving of respect.
Like it or not, Android and therefore Google is an Apple competitor. Your lame excuses that the GV app does not "replace" the base iphone app doesn't wash given that the entire intent is to move the user from other ecosystems (including the iPhone) into the Google Voice ecosystem where Google can attempt to monetize the eyeballs in some fashion. Google isn't a charity so when they give something away, there's specific advantage for them. It's also often to the advantage of the user. It is not often to the advantage to their competitors. Of which Apple is one.
In any case, GV functionality, like VVM, should be easy to replicate. Especially for AT&T. The problem for AT&T and other telephony companies is that this is either where they make money or use as a competitive advantage (here the iPhone and Apple applies). Google, who doesn't care about either, gives it away because it can afford to and it doesn't impact their own monopoly revenue stream.
Same for Apple in the iPod world...but I view Apple as far more vulnerable than either MS or Google because of its hardware based business model. But I also do understand why some folks are scared/mad at Apple for pissing in their revenue stream by minimizing the commercial value of content on iTunes. Apple uses it's monopoly power on MPs players to force content providers to negotiate on favorable terms for Apple. Good for Apple. Good for Apple customers. Not so good for media companies.
Folks really upset about that don't buy iPods or use iTunes. If you're that upset about GV and the app store, I suggest you do the same. If not, then you'll just have to accept it when folks call you on empty protestations.
Besides, Google could work with Apple to integrate GV into the basic phone app. It's not like GMail isn't a top tier provider for mail. Then the iPhone user base stays within the iPhone ecosystem when on the iPhone and within the GV one when on other platforms.
Yes. because Android is not a competing product...
Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...
On your high horse in yet another posting.
Apple is already hosting all of the Great Free Apps that come on the iPhone.
I see. So 'example' is another one of those words that you want to create your own meaning for.
No stick to the accepted definition. Just like 'replaced'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If I say that I have owned a number of cars and as an example, my current car is red, would you infer that EVERY car I've ever owned is red? Of course not, but that's how you're trying to interpret Apple's statement.
No, but if you say your have owned red cars and you say "for example, my current car is red" that would make sense.
If, to demonstrate the number of cars you have owned or that you have owned cars, you give an example of your car being red, it would just make you dumb. Its colour is not an example of what you are trying to demonstrate. When giving an example, it usually helps for it to be an example of what you are trying to demonstrate. Examples should be relevant, not useless side information.
This is precisely what Apple did in their statement, as they are not idiots. They gave relevant examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Similarly, just because the examples Apple gave behaved in a certain way does not mean that EVERY app behaves in the same way. They are EXAMPLES.
Uh yeah, that is the point. They are Apple own examples to describe how the app 'replaces' Apple's interface. Exactly the point. That their own description describes a situation where the user chooses to use an alternative. You think if they are gong to accuse google of something and then given an example, they would choose an example that actually demonstrates their point. You know, since that is sort of the point of an example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Interesting that the Mac bashers seem to forget that simple issue.
It's OK for them to call Apple a 'phone monopoly' when there are 6 major phone platforms and Apple has a single digit market share, but it's OK for Google to have the overwhelming lion's share of search advertising revenue - and then using that money to expand into other markets.
Hypocrites.
See, that is your problem. A lack or critical thinking and basic understanding.
Seeing fault with Apple and stating as much does not make one a Mac Basher...(especially when the fault the are referencing is the iPhone). But, you make it obvious why this escapes you.
Who said Google's search monopoly is OK? They might well be investigated and if it is found they are in a monopoly position and are abusing, then nail the f*ckers to the wall. If that did happen, I expect the will be blindly stupid google nuthuggers calling me a google hater. But, some people are just idiots that way.
So you'll give up Google Search in Safari on the iPHone?
You'll give up YouTube on the iPHone?
And probably the most used App on any phone ever. You'll give up Google Maps and directions on the iPHone.
Nope. Because I'm not whining about Google's monopoly and dumping. I don't mind it given it impacts mostly MS and Apple. Two other large companies with their own monopolies and can take care of themselves. Nor do I much care when it impacts media companies and phone companies because my user experiences with them have been substandard anyway.
I just don't see how Apple not allowing GV as a big deal. They are competitors. Mostly friendly but still competitors. Of the three companies, I prefer Apple to win any conflicts. Sue me.
Quote:
Google has already "dumped" all of the Free Apps as you call them on the iPhone and iPhone users love them.
Sure. Google and even MS are mostly benign monopolies toward users. MS Office was great for users but it put companies like Wang out of business. Instead of $5000 word processing machines you could get a $200 office package. Massive win for the users. Not so massive win for MS competitors.
Even the browser thing. Had it not been for MS we'd likely be paying $40 for browsers. Netscape had to monetize their browser base and selling servers wasn't really cutting it. Had there been no IE they'd have been forced to start charging...and they have every intention of doing so. They were already charging site licenses for their browser and had planned to charge everyone but academic and non-profit users.
What most folks miss is that MS was a good thing for the computing world. I expect Google to work pretty much the same way (and be a little less evil in the process). And I hope that Apple can make the phone and media companies a little more responsive to their users and if they have to bludgeon them with their iPod stick I don't mind.
Quote:
If you're going to trash someone take a look at your own iPhone and see how much you already rely on Google and would be willing to give up if Google decided to pull them from your phone.
As I said earlier Google isn't a charity. It doesn't give away free apps unless it fits into their long term business strategy. YouTube costs massive amounts of money to maintain and Google has plans to generate a positive ROI from maintaining YouTube.
Same for Google Maps and especially Google Earth. MS is actually a lot more friendly with Virtual Earth.
That's hardly trashing Google.
Which apps would I give up? Well any of them really. Bing for search, Hotmail for mail, VE for maps, etc. Whether MS would actually write these for the iPhone is debatable but someone would fill the void. Now I USE Google search over Bing, Maps over VE and GMail over Hotmail but mostly because Google does a better job at integration than MS.
Which is a shame because I really like the Live guys. They've been pretty good to my project and me personally.
The question for both Apple and Google is whether it is still advantageous for certain apps to be on the iPhone. For GV Apple has said no and Google isn't likely to pull GMail, GMaps or search off for the sake of GV.
Ahh...you're a troll an no further need to respond to you except maybe to taunt you a second time. Thanks!
That line from an Apple Apologist has become so old that it's almost comical. Try a different approach to someone that disagrees with you, you dismissed me as a Troll in 2 postings to you. Who's the Troll at this point. An Apple Troll.
Because companies change behavior most often when revenues take a hit.
Besides, being outraged without the moral conviction to actually change your own behavior to influence the company in question is equally if not more idiotic and certainly far less deserving of respect.
I am not outraged. I am discussing problems i see with the policies of a company of which I am huge fan. Apple has responded positively to issues that were publicized widely in the Mac/Apple community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Like it or not, Android and therefore Google is an Apple competitor. Your lame excuses that the GV app does not "replace" the base iphone app doesn't wash given that the entire intent is to move the user from other ecosystems (including the iPhone) into the Google Voice ecosystem where Google can attempt to monetize the eyeballs in some fashion. Google isn't a charity so when they give something away, there's specific advantage for them. It's also often to the advantage of the user. It is not often to the advantage to their competitors. Of which Apple is one.
I gave no excuses. I explained the fault of some people readings of the response from Apple.
But, if all the GV app does to be rejected/delayed, is provide an alternative, then as you say, they were denied/rejected likely simply because they are google and a competitor with Apple. That would be akin to MS putting hooks into Windows to prevent iTunes from running. After all, they compete. Please don't counter with the response that, well Apple owns the ecosystem etc, as that is what gives them the ability. The reason and rationale you gave is that they compete, so as a reason, it would be a proper reason for MS to do the same to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
In any case, GV functionality, like VVM, should be easy to replicate. Especially for AT&T. The problem for AT&T and other telephony companies is that this is either where they make money or use as a competitive advantage (here the iPhone and Apple applies). Google, who doesn't care about either, gives it away because it can afford to and it doesn't impact their own monopoly revenue stream.
Yup. So you always pay for your browse right? I mean, it is free. And MS was right to block third party browsers, right? After all, they were trying to give it away for free to get users to use it.
But yes, it is a revenue stream. It appears to be relatively easy to replicate, as many carriers now offer it. Often for free. They all pay a royalties to Klausner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Same for Apple in the iPod world...but I view Apple as far more vulnerable than either MS or Google because of its hardware based business model. But I also do understand why some folks are scared/mad at Apple for pissing in their revenue stream by minimizing the commercial value of content on iTunes. Apple uses it's monopoly power on MPs players to force content providers to negotiate on favorable terms for Apple. Good for Apple. Good for Apple customers. Not so good for media companies.
Actually very good for the content providers. They just want more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Folks really upset about that don't buy iPods or use iTunes. If you're that upset about GV and the app store, I suggest you do the same. If not, then you'll just have to accept it when folks call you on empty protestations.
I would suggest that if actually are a thinking person and like the product, this should not mean you think it is perfect and intentionally accept all possible faults. That is an idiots path. But then, I think that is why the same people always then only have the single response of "then buy a pre". They honestly cannot comprehend the concept of likely a product or company and have issues with it at the same time...but for most it seems they only think this way for companies they 'follow', much like any other cult members.
Again, before you call me an Apple hater, or basher or whatever other 'lame' name used these days, I, again, am a huge Apple fan...just not a 'follower'. The world doesn't need another cult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Besides, Google could work with Apple to integrate GV into the basic phone app. It's not like GMail isn't a top tier provider for mail. Then the iPhone user base stays within the iPhone ecosystem when on the iPhone and within the GV one when on other platforms.
Sure. This would be great, since GV is a service...the app simply makes it convenient. I don't care whether the interface for the GV service comes from google or Apple or anyone else. If they did do this, then the Apple 'followers' would actually be allowed to like the GV service. Google was willing to let 3rd parties to their own apps, so they should be willing to let Apple do it. I don't think Apple would agree to it, for a number of reasons.
That line from an Apple Apologist has become so old that it's almost comical. Try a different approach to someone that disagrees with you, you dismissed me as a Troll in 2 postings to you. Who's the Troll at this point. An Apple Troll.
Easy, you ignored a detailed posting that addressed your position to throw out a one liner that added zero content to the discussion. I actually meant to call you something other than a troll but we're not really supposed to insult other users here.
Yep, I'm sure every apple apologists thinks Apple is a monopolist.
Easy, you ignored a detailed posting that addressed your position to throw out a one liner that added zero content to the discussion. I actually meant to call you something other than a troll but we're not really supposed to insult other users here.
Yep, I'm sure every apple apologists thinks Apple is a monopolist.
During the past 3 days I've added plenty of information to this particular posting.
You chose to read one. I Call you an Apple Troll on your own forum.
Read the entire 207 postings as I have and reviewed the YouTube (Google Supplied) video of what it offered and I want it. Do know exactly what Google currently has on your phone and how much information you've already given them without thought.
You gave me an uneducated, sophomoric response to a very serious discussion.
I am not outraged. I am discussing problems i see with the policies of a company of which I am huge fan. Apple has responded positively to issues that were publicized widely in the Mac/Apple community.
Okay, you're not outraged and a huge fan.
Quote:
I gave no excuses. I explained the fault of some people readings of the response from Apple.
Uh, right. Because GV isn't trying to replace existing phone ecosystems with a Google managed one.
Quote:
But, if all the GV app does to be rejected/delayed, is provide an alternative, then as you say, they were denied/rejected likely simply because they are google and a competitor with Apple. That would be akin to MS putting hooks into Windows to prevent iTunes from running.
Nope. It would be like MS not allowing iTunes to be sold from MS stores if it was considered not good for MS...a perfectly reasonable position. Or Sony keeping the iTunes infrastructure from the PS3 if Sony didn't like it. Another perfectly reasonable position.
Quote:
After all, they compete. Please don't counter with the response that, well Apple owns the ecosystem etc, as that is what gives them the ability. The reason and rationale you gave is that they compete, so as a reason, it would be a proper reason for MS to do the same to Apple.
It does own the ecosystem. Try getting stuff to run on the PS3 that Sony doesn't want.
MS COULD do the same but the problem with that scenario is that it would be singling out a competitor on a general purpose computing system. As a monopolist it would have significant issues with that (*cough* browsers *cough*).
iTunes doesn't run on the 360. That's a much closer situation given that both platforms are closed and neither are in monopoly positions. Arguably Apple wouldn't port iTunes to the 360 but you have a pretty hard case to make that MS would really want to allow it either. Seamless 360 and iPod integration is just another nail in the Zune coffin.
The scenario you posit is FUD. The counter is to call it so. The iPhone OSX is not an open system like Android, Linux or Mac OSX but a closed ecosystem.
Quote:
Yup. So you always pay for your browse right? I mean, it is free. And MS was right to block third party browsers, right? After all, they were trying to give it away for free to get users to use it.
Block? They never blocked third party browsers. They didn't INCLUDE third party browsers and I never had an issue with that. Frankly what killed netscape wasn't bundling IE but the fact that just when IE stopped sucking Netscape was about to charge for their browsers for normal users.
Had it not been for IE, we could have entered a period where it was normal to charge for browsers.
Quote:
Actually very good for the content providers. They just want more.
Yah, okay, if you say so. Those companies disagree that having Apple in the driver position is good for them. Could be because it isn't. That they want more is a natural aspect of capitalism.
That you won't even agree that Apple minimizes the value of content to make the iTunes ecosystem more attractive to users is interesting. Everything is $0.99 was really great for content producers. Because good and new content is of identical value to old or bad content.
Quote:
I would suggest that if actually are a thinking person and like the product, this should not mean you think it is perfect and intentionally accept all possible faults. That is an idiots path. But then, I think that is why the same people always then only have the single response of "then buy a pre". They honestly cannot comprehend the concept of likely a product or company and have issues with it at the same time...but for most it seems they only think this way for companies they 'follow', much like any other cult members.
I would suggest that all of your "thinking" has zero impact on the behavior of Apple.
Quote:
Again, before you call me an Apple hater, or basher or whatever other 'lame' name used these days, I, again, am a huge Apple fan...just not a 'follower'. The world doesn't need another cult.
Apple's "cult" is equally a dodge as calling someone a hater or whatever. Frankly, there are probably more haters than cultists anyway based on human nature on the net.
The point is that whining on an apple fan site does zero good. Hence the common response "well, don't buy one then". It's a very simple solution to the problem with App store policy. The whole thing is blown completely out of proportion and is now simply FUD against Apple.
As a "huge Apple fan" with deep thoughts on the subject you might consider that.
Thus far in this discussion you've dismissed anything that disagrees with your position and pretty much implied that those that disagree are mindless followers. Maybe folks are simply tired of even more anti-Apple FUD about the app store?
Gee, 95% acceptance rate and Apple is somehow being overly selective on the App Store.
Quote:
Sure. This would be great, since GV is a service...the app simply makes it convenient. I don't care whether the interface for the GV service comes from google or Apple or anyone else. If they did do this, then the Apple 'followers' would actually be allowed to like the GV service. Google was willing to let 3rd parties to their own apps, so they should be willing to let Apple do it. I don't think Apple would agree to it, for a number of reasons.
You don't think Apple would agree but you think Google would allow it? Heh, yah, there's no bias there...especially not against those mindless sheeple that are Apple followers (rather than fans of course).
In any case, are you a GV user? Or are you "not-outraged" over something that doesn't even impact you about the app store? Like those non-iPhone dev's "not-outraged" over app store policies.
Funny, I like GV. I just don't really care there's no app.
During the past 3 days I've added plenty of information to this particular posting.
Interesting that your content is completely limited to this one thread.
Quote:
You chose to read one. I Call you an Apple Troll on your own forum.
I choose to respond to one directed at me. I didn't find the others particularly noteworthy of comment.
Quote:
Read the entire 207 postings as I have and reviewed the YouTube (Google Supplied) video of what it offered and I want it. Do know exactly what Google currently has on your phone and how much information you've already given them without thought.
Given that I'm currently developing on the Google platform (specifically wave) I'd say that I am somewhat more likely to know what's on my iPhone from google than average.
I also likely appreciate Google far more than you.
Quote:
You gave me an uneducated, sophomoric response to a very serious discussion.
Get on Board or Get off the Board.
I gave you a response suited for your particular argument given you responded twice to the same post. Even more amusing is that you really did think it was a second post and stated it as "another post".
Yep, trollish behavior and not very good trollish behavior at that. I would call it epic failure except it was hardly epic. Just a sad little failure.
And for a 20 post member on one single subject (10% of which was responding to the same post ) it's rather amusing for you to tell me to get lost.
Hey, how about another suitable response for you: Your mother is an hamster and your father smells of elderberries!
PS Apologies for the excessive smilies but you have been highly amusing tonight. Even more funny is that you're trying to piss me off. Imagine a smiley here since I've used up my quota for the night.
iTunes doesn't run on the 360. That's a much closer situation given that both platforms are closed and neither are in monopoly positions. Arguably Apple wouldn't port iTunes to the 360 but you have a pretty hard case to make that MS would really want to allow it either. Seamless 360 and iPod integration is just another nail in the Zune coffin.
.
Microsoft has "partnered" with Netflix and is working on an number of other partnerships to enhance the Zune/XBox Solution for an entire in-house/on the road experience.
So once again, your argument (not posting) has gone down the drain.
You can now download Netflix (downloadable) Movies to your XBox 360. I would expect Netflix to expand their downloadable Movies (which are now free) to be under their subscription rate (which if you are an avid movie watcher, is 90% less than Apple currently charges.
I see Apple changing their ways and partnering with Movie vendors to compete. At this point they almost have to or the FCC will continue to haunt them.
Comments
what a very thoughtful post.
Some people prefer to think and make decisions on their own.
Some people need to be told what to think, what to use, what to do. I have no respect for those people.
So think and make your own decision and buy a different phone.
Frankly it's a tempest in a teapot. The total number of Google voice users are tiny. 99% of the people in an uproar aren't even in the beta.
Google Voice was not developed with the iPhone as a target for competition. It just so happens that Google Voice offers things the iPhone does not on its own; it is a compelling and free product that Apple is too scared to allow as fair competition.
Yes. because Android is not a competing product...
Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...
Apple has customers and fans. Followers are those that reside here along with the trollers.
See, again. very telling. 'Follower' see 'them' and 'us'. That is the problem with fanhood turning into a religion.
As someone who has 'resided' here for many, many years more than you, I can say that there certainly are followers and trolls and haters. There are also fans, critics, passer-bys, etc. It is more than black and white. Apple does not always happen to be right, just because they are Apple.
It used to be funny when people said I was a Mac zealot. The way some of the new wave of Apple fans act, it has taken on a new meaning. Less cute nick name and more actual description. Cultist might be a better term for some. Scary.
'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?
If those 'free-loaders' have given over a large portion of their disposable income to 'mom', them mom should be open to suggestions. And her family should be mature enough to recognize when those criticisms are valid instead of throwing a fit.
But nobody said it did. And why is it in a 'state of limbo?
So then you assumed it?
limbo, as in neither here nor there, neither hot nor cold, neither approved nor rejected. "Still under review" and "pondering". Limbo.
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.
I see. So 'example' is another one of those words that you want to create your own meaning for.
If I say that I have owned a number of cars and as an example, my current car is red, would you infer that EVERY car I've ever owned is red? Of course not, but that's how you're trying to interpret Apple's statement.
Similarly, just because the examples Apple gave behaved in a certain way does not mean that EVERY app behaves in the same way. They are EXAMPLES.
Yes. because Android is not a competing product...
Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...
Ding, ding, ding, ding.... You win the kewpie doll.
Interesting that the Mac bashers seem to forget that simple issue.
It's OK for them to call Apple a 'phone monopoly' when there are 6 major phone platforms and Apple has a single digit market share, but it's OK for Google to have the overwhelming lion's share of search advertising revenue - and then using that money to expand into other markets.
Hypocrites.
So think and make your own decision and buy a different phone.
No, thanks for the offer anyway. I am quite happy with the iPhone. Disappointed with some of Apple recent policies, but still a Mac/Apple fan and likely will always be.
Why do some people always need to resort this idiot response? What are we, five again? Going to take your toys and go home next?
Google Voice "The Service" gives you all these features -- SMS, Voicemail transciption, etc. If you are a user of Google Voice "The Service" all of your voicemails are going to Google Voice mailbox, etc. This is entirely distinct from anything your phone does, any applications on your phone, what type of phone you have, etc.
Apples local Iphone centric features are replaced by the user signing up for Google Voice "The Service"...which anyone can do. When you sign up for Google Voice the service, it is because you want to use Google Voice the service, because Google Voice the service offers very nice call management. As a Google Voice user, you explicitly do not want to use local, native management features, that is why you signed up for Google Voice the service.
ALL of the above -- is completely separate from having a Google Voice app on your phone. As a user of Google Voice, you are using Google Voice the service whether or not you have any App installed anywhere, you use it on your home phone, you use it on your business phones, and you use it on your cell phone. Your incoming calls are coming through Google Voice, your voicemails are being taken by Google Voice, etc. It's a phone management tool.
What the App does is give you easy access to your Google Voice account, as has been mentioned getting notified when you get voicemails, etc, and making it slightly easier to call out using Google Voice the service. But regardless of whether you have an app or not, using Apples phraseology as soon as you signed up for and began using Google Voice the service, you already "Replaced" things like the Iphone VVM. Apple has zero control over that.
Google releasing an app for the Iphone is to make it easier to access and use Google Voice the service from the Iphone. Apple blocking the app from the Iphone is to make it less pleasant for Iphone users to access Google Voice the service. But just so everyone is clear, things like VVM are "replaced" either way -- whether there is an app or not, the service takes care of all that.
Why do some people always need to resort this idiot response? What are we, five again? Going to take your toys and go home next?
The response ('if you don't like Apple/AT&T, then buy a different phone') was right on the money.
Apple offers a product. You get to choose to buy it or not to buy it. That is the extent of your freedom and that's how a free market works. You do NOT have the authority to dictate how Apple should sell or support the product.
Yes. because Android is not a competing product...
Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...
So you'll give up Google Search in Safari on the iPHone?
You'll give up YouTube on the iPHone?
And probably the most used App on any phone ever. You'll give up Google Maps and directions on the iPHone.
Google has already "dumped" all of the Free Apps as you call them on the iPhone and iPhone users love them.
If you're going to trash someone take a look at your own iPhone and see how much you already rely on Google and would be willing to give up if Google decided to pull them from your phone.
No, thanks for the offer anyway. I am quite happy with the iPhone. Disappointed with some of Apple recent policies, but still a Mac/Apple fan and likely will always be.
Why do some people always need to resort this idiot response? What are we, five again? Going to take your toys and go home next?
Because companies change behavior most often when revenues take a hit.
Besides, being outraged without the moral conviction to actually change your own behavior to influence the company in question is equally if not more idiotic and certainly far less deserving of respect.
Like it or not, Android and therefore Google is an Apple competitor. Your lame excuses that the GV app does not "replace" the base iphone app doesn't wash given that the entire intent is to move the user from other ecosystems (including the iPhone) into the Google Voice ecosystem where Google can attempt to monetize the eyeballs in some fashion. Google isn't a charity so when they give something away, there's specific advantage for them. It's also often to the advantage of the user. It is not often to the advantage to their competitors. Of which Apple is one.
In any case, GV functionality, like VVM, should be easy to replicate. Especially for AT&T. The problem for AT&T and other telephony companies is that this is either where they make money or use as a competitive advantage (here the iPhone and Apple applies). Google, who doesn't care about either, gives it away because it can afford to and it doesn't impact their own monopoly revenue stream.
Same for Apple in the iPod world...but I view Apple as far more vulnerable than either MS or Google because of its hardware based business model. But I also do understand why some folks are scared/mad at Apple for pissing in their revenue stream by minimizing the commercial value of content on iTunes. Apple uses it's monopoly power on MPs players to force content providers to negotiate on favorable terms for Apple. Good for Apple. Good for Apple customers. Not so good for media companies.
Folks really upset about that don't buy iPods or use iTunes. If you're that upset about GV and the app store, I suggest you do the same. If not, then you'll just have to accept it when folks call you on empty protestations.
Besides, Google could work with Apple to integrate GV into the basic phone app. It's not like GMail isn't a top tier provider for mail. Then the iPhone user base stays within the iPhone ecosystem when on the iPhone and within the GV one when on other platforms.
Yes. because Android is not a competing product...
Note that Google is using its search monopoly to dump products in other areas for "free". That's fine as far as it goes, but there's certainly no reason that Apple should host such apps...
On your high horse in yet another posting.
Apple is already hosting all of the Great Free Apps that come on the iPhone.
I see. So 'example' is another one of those words that you want to create your own meaning for.
No stick to the accepted definition. Just like 'replaced'.
If I say that I have owned a number of cars and as an example, my current car is red, would you infer that EVERY car I've ever owned is red? Of course not, but that's how you're trying to interpret Apple's statement.
No, but if you say your have owned red cars and you say "for example, my current car is red" that would make sense.
If, to demonstrate the number of cars you have owned or that you have owned cars, you give an example of your car being red, it would just make you dumb. Its colour is not an example of what you are trying to demonstrate. When giving an example, it usually helps for it to be an example of what you are trying to demonstrate. Examples should be relevant, not useless side information.
This is precisely what Apple did in their statement, as they are not idiots. They gave relevant examples.
Similarly, just because the examples Apple gave behaved in a certain way does not mean that EVERY app behaves in the same way. They are EXAMPLES.
Uh yeah, that is the point. They are Apple own examples to describe how the app 'replaces' Apple's interface. Exactly the point. That their own description describes a situation where the user chooses to use an alternative. You think if they are gong to accuse google of something and then given an example, they would choose an example that actually demonstrates their point. You know, since that is sort of the point of an example.
Interesting that the Mac bashers seem to forget that simple issue.
It's OK for them to call Apple a 'phone monopoly' when there are 6 major phone platforms and Apple has a single digit market share, but it's OK for Google to have the overwhelming lion's share of search advertising revenue - and then using that money to expand into other markets.
Hypocrites.
See, that is your problem. A lack or critical thinking and basic understanding.
Seeing fault with Apple and stating as much does not make one a Mac Basher...(especially when the fault the are referencing is the iPhone). But, you make it obvious why this escapes you.
Who said Google's search monopoly is OK? They might well be investigated and if it is found they are in a monopoly position and are abusing, then nail the f*ckers to the wall. If that did happen, I expect the will be blindly stupid google nuthuggers calling me a google hater. But, some people are just idiots that way.
So you'll give up Google Search in Safari on the iPHone?
You'll give up YouTube on the iPHone?
And probably the most used App on any phone ever. You'll give up Google Maps and directions on the iPHone.
Nope. Because I'm not whining about Google's monopoly and dumping. I don't mind it given it impacts mostly MS and Apple. Two other large companies with their own monopolies and can take care of themselves. Nor do I much care when it impacts media companies and phone companies because my user experiences with them have been substandard anyway.
I just don't see how Apple not allowing GV as a big deal. They are competitors. Mostly friendly but still competitors. Of the three companies, I prefer Apple to win any conflicts. Sue me.
Google has already "dumped" all of the Free Apps as you call them on the iPhone and iPhone users love them.
Sure. Google and even MS are mostly benign monopolies toward users. MS Office was great for users but it put companies like Wang out of business. Instead of $5000 word processing machines you could get a $200 office package. Massive win for the users. Not so massive win for MS competitors.
Even the browser thing. Had it not been for MS we'd likely be paying $40 for browsers. Netscape had to monetize their browser base and selling servers wasn't really cutting it. Had there been no IE they'd have been forced to start charging...and they have every intention of doing so. They were already charging site licenses for their browser and had planned to charge everyone but academic and non-profit users.
What most folks miss is that MS was a good thing for the computing world. I expect Google to work pretty much the same way (and be a little less evil in the process). And I hope that Apple can make the phone and media companies a little more responsive to their users and if they have to bludgeon them with their iPod stick I don't mind.
If you're going to trash someone take a look at your own iPhone and see how much you already rely on Google and would be willing to give up if Google decided to pull them from your phone.
As I said earlier Google isn't a charity. It doesn't give away free apps unless it fits into their long term business strategy. YouTube costs massive amounts of money to maintain and Google has plans to generate a positive ROI from maintaining YouTube.
Same for Google Maps and especially Google Earth. MS is actually a lot more friendly with Virtual Earth.
That's hardly trashing Google.
Which apps would I give up? Well any of them really. Bing for search, Hotmail for mail, VE for maps, etc. Whether MS would actually write these for the iPhone is debatable but someone would fill the void. Now I USE Google search over Bing, Maps over VE and GMail over Hotmail but mostly because Google does a better job at integration than MS.
Which is a shame because I really like the Live guys. They've been pretty good to my project and me personally.
The question for both Apple and Google is whether it is still advantageous for certain apps to be on the iPhone. For GV Apple has said no and Google isn't likely to pull GMail, GMaps or search off for the sake of GV.
On your high horse in yet another posting.
Apple is already hosting all of the Great Free Apps that come on the iPhone.
Ahh...you're a troll an no further need to respond to you except maybe to taunt you a second time. Thanks!
Ahh...you're a troll an no further need to respond to you except maybe to taunt you a second time. Thanks!
That line from an Apple Apologist has become so old that it's almost comical. Try a different approach to someone that disagrees with you, you dismissed me as a Troll in 2 postings to you. Who's the Troll at this point. An Apple Troll.
Because companies change behavior most often when revenues take a hit.
Besides, being outraged without the moral conviction to actually change your own behavior to influence the company in question is equally if not more idiotic and certainly far less deserving of respect.
I am not outraged. I am discussing problems i see with the policies of a company of which I am huge fan. Apple has responded positively to issues that were publicized widely in the Mac/Apple community.
Like it or not, Android and therefore Google is an Apple competitor. Your lame excuses that the GV app does not "replace" the base iphone app doesn't wash given that the entire intent is to move the user from other ecosystems (including the iPhone) into the Google Voice ecosystem where Google can attempt to monetize the eyeballs in some fashion. Google isn't a charity so when they give something away, there's specific advantage for them. It's also often to the advantage of the user. It is not often to the advantage to their competitors. Of which Apple is one.
I gave no excuses. I explained the fault of some people readings of the response from Apple.
But, if all the GV app does to be rejected/delayed, is provide an alternative, then as you say, they were denied/rejected likely simply because they are google and a competitor with Apple. That would be akin to MS putting hooks into Windows to prevent iTunes from running. After all, they compete. Please don't counter with the response that, well Apple owns the ecosystem etc, as that is what gives them the ability. The reason and rationale you gave is that they compete, so as a reason, it would be a proper reason for MS to do the same to Apple.
In any case, GV functionality, like VVM, should be easy to replicate. Especially for AT&T. The problem for AT&T and other telephony companies is that this is either where they make money or use as a competitive advantage (here the iPhone and Apple applies). Google, who doesn't care about either, gives it away because it can afford to and it doesn't impact their own monopoly revenue stream.
Yup. So you always pay for your browse right? I mean, it is free. And MS was right to block third party browsers, right? After all, they were trying to give it away for free to get users to use it.
But yes, it is a revenue stream. It appears to be relatively easy to replicate, as many carriers now offer it. Often for free. They all pay a royalties to Klausner.
Same for Apple in the iPod world...but I view Apple as far more vulnerable than either MS or Google because of its hardware based business model. But I also do understand why some folks are scared/mad at Apple for pissing in their revenue stream by minimizing the commercial value of content on iTunes. Apple uses it's monopoly power on MPs players to force content providers to negotiate on favorable terms for Apple. Good for Apple. Good for Apple customers. Not so good for media companies.
Actually very good for the content providers. They just want more.
Folks really upset about that don't buy iPods or use iTunes. If you're that upset about GV and the app store, I suggest you do the same. If not, then you'll just have to accept it when folks call you on empty protestations.
I would suggest that if actually are a thinking person and like the product, this should not mean you think it is perfect and intentionally accept all possible faults. That is an idiots path. But then, I think that is why the same people always then only have the single response of "then buy a pre". They honestly cannot comprehend the concept of likely a product or company and have issues with it at the same time...but for most it seems they only think this way for companies they 'follow', much like any other cult members.
Again, before you call me an Apple hater, or basher or whatever other 'lame' name used these days, I, again, am a huge Apple fan...just not a 'follower'. The world doesn't need another cult.
Besides, Google could work with Apple to integrate GV into the basic phone app. It's not like GMail isn't a top tier provider for mail. Then the iPhone user base stays within the iPhone ecosystem when on the iPhone and within the GV one when on other platforms.
Sure. This would be great, since GV is a service...the app simply makes it convenient. I don't care whether the interface for the GV service comes from google or Apple or anyone else. If they did do this, then the Apple 'followers' would actually be allowed to like the GV service. Google was willing to let 3rd parties to their own apps, so they should be willing to let Apple do it. I don't think Apple would agree to it, for a number of reasons.
That line from an Apple Apologist has become so old that it's almost comical. Try a different approach to someone that disagrees with you, you dismissed me as a Troll in 2 postings to you. Who's the Troll at this point. An Apple Troll.
Easy, you ignored a detailed posting that addressed your position to throw out a one liner that added zero content to the discussion. I actually meant to call you something other than a troll but we're not really supposed to insult other users here.
Yep, I'm sure every apple apologists thinks Apple is a monopolist.
Easy, you ignored a detailed posting that addressed your position to throw out a one liner that added zero content to the discussion. I actually meant to call you something other than a troll but we're not really supposed to insult other users here.
Yep, I'm sure every apple apologists thinks Apple is a monopolist.
During the past 3 days I've added plenty of information to this particular posting.
You chose to read one. I Call you an Apple Troll on your own forum.
Read the entire 207 postings as I have and reviewed the YouTube (Google Supplied) video of what it offered and I want it. Do know exactly what Google currently has on your phone and how much information you've already given them without thought.
You gave me an uneducated, sophomoric response to a very serious discussion.
Get on Board or Get off the Board.
I am not outraged. I am discussing problems i see with the policies of a company of which I am huge fan. Apple has responded positively to issues that were publicized widely in the Mac/Apple community.
Okay, you're not outraged and a huge fan.
I gave no excuses. I explained the fault of some people readings of the response from Apple.
Uh, right. Because GV isn't trying to replace existing phone ecosystems with a Google managed one.
But, if all the GV app does to be rejected/delayed, is provide an alternative, then as you say, they were denied/rejected likely simply because they are google and a competitor with Apple. That would be akin to MS putting hooks into Windows to prevent iTunes from running.
Nope. It would be like MS not allowing iTunes to be sold from MS stores if it was considered not good for MS...a perfectly reasonable position. Or Sony keeping the iTunes infrastructure from the PS3 if Sony didn't like it. Another perfectly reasonable position.
After all, they compete. Please don't counter with the response that, well Apple owns the ecosystem etc, as that is what gives them the ability. The reason and rationale you gave is that they compete, so as a reason, it would be a proper reason for MS to do the same to Apple.
It does own the ecosystem. Try getting stuff to run on the PS3 that Sony doesn't want.
MS COULD do the same but the problem with that scenario is that it would be singling out a competitor on a general purpose computing system. As a monopolist it would have significant issues with that (*cough* browsers *cough*).
iTunes doesn't run on the 360. That's a much closer situation given that both platforms are closed and neither are in monopoly positions. Arguably Apple wouldn't port iTunes to the 360 but you have a pretty hard case to make that MS would really want to allow it either. Seamless 360 and iPod integration is just another nail in the Zune coffin.
The scenario you posit is FUD. The counter is to call it so. The iPhone OSX is not an open system like Android, Linux or Mac OSX but a closed ecosystem.
Yup. So you always pay for your browse right? I mean, it is free. And MS was right to block third party browsers, right? After all, they were trying to give it away for free to get users to use it.
Block? They never blocked third party browsers. They didn't INCLUDE third party browsers and I never had an issue with that. Frankly what killed netscape wasn't bundling IE but the fact that just when IE stopped sucking Netscape was about to charge for their browsers for normal users.
Had it not been for IE, we could have entered a period where it was normal to charge for browsers.
Actually very good for the content providers. They just want more.
Yah, okay, if you say so. Those companies disagree that having Apple in the driver position is good for them. Could be because it isn't. That they want more is a natural aspect of capitalism.
That you won't even agree that Apple minimizes the value of content to make the iTunes ecosystem more attractive to users is interesting. Everything is $0.99 was really great for content producers. Because good and new content is of identical value to old or bad content.
I would suggest that if actually are a thinking person and like the product, this should not mean you think it is perfect and intentionally accept all possible faults. That is an idiots path. But then, I think that is why the same people always then only have the single response of "then buy a pre". They honestly cannot comprehend the concept of likely a product or company and have issues with it at the same time...but for most it seems they only think this way for companies they 'follow', much like any other cult members.
I would suggest that all of your "thinking" has zero impact on the behavior of Apple.
Again, before you call me an Apple hater, or basher or whatever other 'lame' name used these days, I, again, am a huge Apple fan...just not a 'follower'. The world doesn't need another cult.
Apple's "cult" is equally a dodge as calling someone a hater or whatever. Frankly, there are probably more haters than cultists anyway based on human nature on the net.
The point is that whining on an apple fan site does zero good. Hence the common response "well, don't buy one then". It's a very simple solution to the problem with App store policy. The whole thing is blown completely out of proportion and is now simply FUD against Apple.
As a "huge Apple fan" with deep thoughts on the subject you might consider that.
Thus far in this discussion you've dismissed anything that disagrees with your position and pretty much implied that those that disagree are mindless followers. Maybe folks are simply tired of even more anti-Apple FUD about the app store?
Gee, 95% acceptance rate and Apple is somehow being overly selective on the App Store.
Sure. This would be great, since GV is a service...the app simply makes it convenient. I don't care whether the interface for the GV service comes from google or Apple or anyone else. If they did do this, then the Apple 'followers' would actually be allowed to like the GV service. Google was willing to let 3rd parties to their own apps, so they should be willing to let Apple do it. I don't think Apple would agree to it, for a number of reasons.
You don't think Apple would agree but you think Google would allow it? Heh, yah, there's no bias there...especially not against those mindless sheeple that are Apple followers (rather than fans of course).
In any case, are you a GV user? Or are you "not-outraged" over something that doesn't even impact you about the app store? Like those non-iPhone dev's "not-outraged" over app store policies.
Funny, I like GV. I just don't really care there's no app.
During the past 3 days I've added plenty of information to this particular posting.
Interesting that your content is completely limited to this one thread.
You chose to read one. I Call you an Apple Troll on your own forum.
I choose to respond to one directed at me. I didn't find the others particularly noteworthy of comment.
Read the entire 207 postings as I have and reviewed the YouTube (Google Supplied) video of what it offered and I want it. Do know exactly what Google currently has on your phone and how much information you've already given them without thought.
Given that I'm currently developing on the Google platform (specifically wave) I'd say that I am somewhat more likely to know what's on my iPhone from google than average.
I also likely appreciate Google far more than you.
You gave me an uneducated, sophomoric response to a very serious discussion.
Get on Board or Get off the Board.
I gave you a response suited for your particular argument given you responded twice to the same post. Even more amusing is that you really did think it was a second post and stated it as "another post".
Yep, trollish behavior and not very good trollish behavior at that. I would call it epic failure except it was hardly epic. Just a sad little failure.
And for a 20 post member on one single subject (10% of which was responding to the same post
Hey, how about another suitable response for you: Your mother is an hamster and your father smells of elderberries!
PS Apologies for the excessive smilies but you have been highly amusing tonight. Even more funny is that you're trying to piss me off. Imagine a smiley here since I've used up my quota for the night.
iTunes doesn't run on the 360. That's a much closer situation given that both platforms are closed and neither are in monopoly positions. Arguably Apple wouldn't port iTunes to the 360 but you have a pretty hard case to make that MS would really want to allow it either. Seamless 360 and iPod integration is just another nail in the Zune coffin.
.
Microsoft has "partnered" with Netflix and is working on an number of other partnerships to enhance the Zune/XBox Solution for an entire in-house/on the road experience.
So once again, your argument (not posting) has gone down the drain.
You can now download Netflix (downloadable) Movies to your XBox 360. I would expect Netflix to expand their downloadable Movies (which are now free) to be under their subscription rate (which if you are an avid movie watcher, is 90% less than Apple currently charges.
I see Apple changing their ways and partnering with Movie vendors to compete. At this point they almost have to or the FCC will continue to haunt them.