Sorry I'm old and I don't see smiley faces as any input to a serious response. In my eyes it just makes it look like grade school. But I will give you a STAR on your report card to show your parents.
Sorry I'm old and I don't see smiley faces as any input to a serious response. In my eyes it just makes it look like grade school. But I will give you a STAR on your report card to show your parents.
Yep, you just want to "not see" that you responded twice to the same post with name calling and zero content.
Oooh...nice try with the age thing. Well, not really. But I think we're almost up to 20% of your total content devoted to me. Nice to have a fan.
Hey, I found a reserve pile of smilies, here you go. I guess technically they are LOLs rather than smileys.
Why would those 'free-loaders' she invited for dinner give over a large portion of their disposable income? As I wrote, "Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner?".
And how about if mum was driving a red convertible, wearing flouro roller blade? The analogy is dead. Just let it go.
Go back and read everything Tulkas has written. It sounds entirely reasonable to me.
If we go back and assess Apple's submission criticially instead of simply accepting it as the truth because it is a response to a government request, it's pretty clear that while not being untruthful, it is clearly leading the suggestion that the application puts away the core telephony function of the iPhone. If someone can explain to me how that is possible, I'm all ears.
Some of the responses are absolutely breathtaking for a vendor of Apple's calibre. They didn't know whether the application did VOIP? A four word email would have solved that question and yet without a hint of irony they are suggesting they are not sure? Sounds like they want to lean on their contractual provisions with AT&T as some sort of defensive manoeuvre.
Take the following two statements:
"I didn't win", and
"I came last"
Both could be truthful but one is certainly more accurate than other. Looks to me if you take apart the response that Apple is being truthful, more than accurate. Of course they have an army of lawyers to provide truthful answers, but that's it. Doesn't mean it's accurate.
AT&T also issued a statement Friday denying any involvement in the state of apparent limbo the Google Voice iPhone software currently finds itself in. AT&T and Apple both stated that AT&T was never contacted by Apple for consultation on the Google Voice application, but that the decision was made solely by the iPhone maker. In the AT&T statement, Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president, external and legislative affairs, encouraged Google Voice users to access the application from the Web.
"Let me state unequivocally, AT&T had no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store," Cicconi said. "AT&T was not asked about the matter by Apple at any time, nor did we offer any view one way or the other."
If we go back and assess Apple's submission criticially instead of simply accepting it as the truth because it is a response to a government request, it's pretty clear that while not being untruthful, it is clearly leading the suggestion that the application puts away the core telephony function of the iPhone. If someone can explain to me how that is possible, I'm all ears.
Lemme see, when you replace the voice mail, contacts, dialing, SMS capabilities with your own I'd say that you are attempting to replace the core telephony function of the iPhone with your own offering. You're reducing the iPhone to nothing more than a host to the google app from the perspective of phone functionality.
Nice if you can get away with it. But there's no reason for Apple to play your game.
From Google's perspective, reducing OSX to nothing more than commodity linux is fine. Just as it is fine for Apple to reduce ATT to nothing more than a pipe. The difference is ATT wants/needs the iPhone. Apple doesn't want/need GV.
Quote:
Some of the responses are absolutely breathtaking for a vendor of Apple's calibre. They didn't know whether the application did VOIP? A four word email would have solved that question and yet without a hint of irony they are suggesting they are not sure? Sounds like they want to lean on their contractual provisions with AT&T as some sort of defensive manoeuvre.
It is VERY unlikely that GV works without VOIP. You could implement it without VOIP but it would be silly. Still, there's no reason that google would answer your hypothetical 4 word email with a 4 word email of its own: "That information is proprietary".
ATT doesn't come into play because the VOIP functionality is likely all on the server side...most probably anyway. If I HAD to answer an official inquiry I would hedge that statement a little just to be safe and let Google answer that question.
Quote:
Take the following two statements:
"I didn't win", and
"I came last"
Both could be truthful but one is certainly more accurate than other. Looks to me if you take apart the response that Apple is being truthful, more than accurate. Of course they have an army of lawyers to provide truthful answers, but that's it. Doesn't mean it's accurate.
Gee, Apple spins things to their own interests. Surprising. So does Google. Google's response, the non-redacted parts anyway, also spins things to make Google look better. Interesting that Google is hiding something from the public isn't it?
My impression is a lot like yours, the word used doesn't really seem to fit the usual use of the word, but is probably still a valid use.
I think it depends on the intention behind the word replace. I'm pretty sure the regular phone app is still there, but the GV app can be used such that the regular phone app isn't necessary to those that want to use GV.
It would seem to me that Apple should have enough software and equipment to know whether or not this GV app is trying to be a VOIP app, for them to say they don't know seems to be a diversionary tactic. Every report I've seen suggests that GV isn't doing VOIP to a phone, that it's still using regular air time.
Asked and Answered:
Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T?s 3G network?
Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application.
Once a call from an iPhone, or any other phone for that matter, is routed through an external server(s), just how could one determine if any part of the call is being transmitted via VoIP technology over a 3G network, if you are not apprised of the protocol employed in the process?
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.
No, but one has the right to discuss limitations, problems and issues that one observes with a company. No matter who that company might be.
Others, the not so bright and the cult-like followers, simply say "oh, well, if they tell it is right, then it must be so."
Who claimed any authority to dictate change? Oh I see, yet another fabrication from you. You are full of them in this thread. You posts are fairly worthless in that sense.
If you don't like reading posts you don't agree with here, why don't you stop reading? See, that is an idiotic statement...likely one you might actually agree with.
Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T?s 3G network?
Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application.
Once a call from an iPhone, or any other phone for that matter, is routed through an external server(s), just how could one determine if any part of the call is being transmitted via VoIP technology over a 3G network, if you are not apprised of the protocol employed in the process?
GV calls you first and then connects you when you make an outbound call (to get caller id to show your GV number). I figure that's all the app does (via IP) although it would be a more seamless experience by using VOIP on the iPhone side to skip the ring back part. It's a big help just to skip the call GV first then enter the number you REALLY want to call next.
Possible that the GV app uses VOIP but highly unlikely given Google knows that ATT doesn't want VOIP over their 3G service. If you aren't going to carry the conversation using VOIP over 3G there's little to no need to use it for any other function on the phone itself.
No, but one has the right to discuss limitations, problems and issues that one observes with a company. No matter who that company might be.
Others, the not so bright and the cult-like followers, simply say "oh, well, if they tell it is right, then it must be so."
Because maybe we've looked into and think it is right and there's no real problem? Nah...easier to just call em fanbois and "not so bright".
Quote:
If you don't like reading posts you don't agree with here, why don't you stop reading? See, that is an idiotic statement...likely one you might actually agree with.
It's called the ignore feature and it's used by quite a few folks. Gee amazing how that works isn't it?
GV calls you first and then connects you when you make an outbound call (to get caller id to show your GV number). I figure that's all the app does (via IP) although it would be a more seamless experience by using VOIP on the iPhone side to skip the ring back part. It's a big help just to skip the call GV first then enter the number you REALLY want to call next.
Possible that the GV app uses VOIP but highly unlikely given Google knows that ATT doesn't want VOIP over their 3G service. If you aren't going to carry the conversation using VOIP over 3G there's little to no need to use it for any other function on the phone itself.
So, the point remains as Apple stated, i.e., "Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application."
So, the point remains as Apple stated, i.e., "Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application."
Sure, and I'd make that same statement if I had to render an official opinion to a government body and refer that question to Google. Never say more than you have to and never speculate on something you don't know.
But if I had to play expert, I'd say it was unlikely given what I know. Odds are Apple never even bothered to check since it's so unlikely. It's not hard to put a packet sniffer on and look for VOIP packets but there's also no reason that they should have been asked the question when Google could have been asked directly. Funny that they didn't in their list of Google questions.
My answer to you was simply for informational purposes...not what Apple should have answered.
Uh, right. Because GV isn't trying to replace existing phone ecosystems with a Google managed one.
In the sense of offering an alternative or replacement? Yup. you got it. In the sense of removing Apple's features, no. Apple's own example make that clear to anyone able to read. As far as it being a complete replacement/alternative ecosystem...yes, they appear to want to provide that. Many other apps replace the individual features that GV would..So the problem is simply that GV would do it all and do it better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
You analogy only makes sense if MS Stores were the only way to load software on a PC. Since not allowing something into the app store prevents it from being legitimately installed on the iPhone, only an analogy of preventing software from being installed on a PC is a comparable analogy.
If Sony barred it from their system only because it was from Apple, I would disagree with that move as well. It would be wrong to do that. They have the right to do it, but that doesn't make it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
It does own the ecosystem. Try getting stuff to run on the PS3 that Sony doesn't want.
So, the reason it is right is because they can? This is why I suggested that you not use their ownership of the ecosystem as the rationale. Your original explanation that Apple should not allow GV was because Google is a competitor. The mechanism of how they are able to do it (their close system) does not provide justification.
So again, by your reasoning, Apple was right to do it, 1) because Google is a competitor and 2) because the can.
Apple competes with MS and MS could easily prevent them or make it difficult to run iTunes, You are right. Perhaps they should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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*).
Their actions were wrong. Their monopolist position made it illegal. But wrong is still wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
So again, by your reasoning comes down to, Apple was right to do it, 1) because Google is a competitor and 2) because the can. Very flexible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
You are right, block was the wrong choice of words. But, they were held to be taking actions to harm Netscape. This actions were wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
Are people buying content on iTunes? Yes, they are. Were music sales on CD dropping quickly? yes they were. Did Apple model help drive sales for content providers? yes it did. So, overall was it good for the content providers? yes, it was.
Could the content providers simply want more, both money and control? No, not those guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
I would suggest that all of your "thinking" has zero impact on the behavior of Apple.
Oh good one. I would suggest that you saying "buy another phone" every time someone has a complaint about Apple is stupid. There, we both have are opinions. But, Apple has shown they are often willing to pay attention when customers/developer/partners start bitching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
When someone (not you) explains to me that they take issue with critics of Apple, not because they are a fan or a customer, but because they are a 'follower' that starts to sound rather cultish to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
So you expect discussing things on a forum to enact change? I expect to engage in dialog. But, those that are not capable of intelligent dialog resort immediately to canned responses "buy a pre", "you hate apple"...very similar to the "You hate America" or "If you don't like it, get out of America" bullshit that some rednecks resort to in their 'discussions'
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
As a "huge Apple fan" with deep thoughts on the subject you might consider that.
Absolutely. I have been called a Mac zealot and had people dismiss arguments I have in favour of Apple or the Mac or iPhone by saying I am too biased for apple. But, if that is their first response, their first counter to my arguments, then it is a pretty stupid response. I see it from both sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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?
I have dismissed only what was presented incorrectly. If anyone presents facts or analysis that I makes sense, whether it agrees with my position or not, i will acknowledge it or not comment on it, but certainly not dismiss it.
maybe some are tired. But for their initial answers to be non-scensical name calling is weak. If they out right lie, that is weak. If they unintentionally fabricate something but then refuse to see it when explained, that is pathetic.
if they disagree with me, that is fine. Lots of intelligent people here and all will have their own opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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).
No bias at all. Google allowed GV Mobile and others to create front end interfaces for their GV services on the iphone. That is a fact. Not a bias.
If Apple did the front end, as you suggested, they would control the interface. If that is the only reason for not being approved, then sure, they might go for it. But, since it is a free service and there would be no additional revenue and Google would still control the service itself, why would Apple approve it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
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.
I do have an activated account, but i don't use it yet as it is not usable in Canada. But, my perception of right and wrong goes beyond what affects me. Maybe some people only see wrong when it personally affects them. (TOTALLY UNRELATED AND BAD ANALOGY ALERT: maybe if more people saw things as wrong that did not have to affect them personally we wouldn't have thinks like Rwanda and the Sudan happen again)
I am an iPhone user and hoped to use GV on the iPhone when it is available here. Is your point that I should only be concerned once it affects me? That I should only think their actions are wrong once they affect me?
Does GV not being available ruin my life? No. Does it disappoint me that my favorite company implements policies and take actions that i disagree with? Yep. Am I outraged? No. Am I disappointed to the point of not buying Apple products? No. Am I disappointed to the point of discussing it on a forum? Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Funny, I like GV. I just don't really care there's no app.
I don't think so. (psst?don't rely on my current handle. A couple of major moves, a loss of my former email address and a change of services?)
Fantastic. I likely have still been here much longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Why would those 'free-loaders' she invited for dinner give over a large portion of their disposable income? As I wrote, "Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner?"
You are right, but that is because it was such a bad analogy to begin with. I am not a guest of Apple, I am a paying customer. As such, I am hardly a freeloader if and when I complain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Man you are so full of shit.
Better check out the definition. Apple is actively "? [continuing] to study it", the issue (not the app) is being pondered on and not as you tried to imply, disregarded or forgotten.
The only state of limbo is your mind. IMO.
<sigh> why do I always have to explain simple, stupid things to some people.
OK, if you need a definition to understand the metaphore:
Quote:
a place or state of restraint or confinement b : a place or state of neglect or oblivion <proposals kept in limbo> c : an intermediate or transitional place or state d : a state of uncertainty
Merriam Webster dictionary
Since it has been submitted, but is neither approved nor denied, it is in a state in between. It is on hold, not only while Apple examines the app and it merits or lack thereof, but while they weigh how to respond. It is an apt metaphore.
So, no, not full of shit, just using words you don't understand. I will try to use smaller words for you.
Edit: removed comments that were to personal on review.
GV calls you first and then connects you when you make an outbound call (to get caller id to show your GV number). I figure that's all the app does (via IP) although it would be a more seamless experience by using VOIP on the iPhone side to skip the ring back part. It's a big help just to skip the call GV first then enter the number you REALLY want to call next.
Possible that the GV app uses VOIP but highly unlikely given Google knows that ATT doesn't want VOIP over their 3G service. If you aren't going to carry the conversation using VOIP over 3G there's little to no need to use it for any other function on the phone itself.
Very good description.
There has been talk of the mobile apps from Google for GV implementing VOIP. But if the App on the iPhone initiated calls over VOIP, Apple would know immediately during their review process.
Because maybe we've looked into and think it is right and there's no real problem? Nah...easier to just call em fanbois and "not so bright".
That there is no problem is your opinion and is it is as right as the person that thinks their actions are wrong.
Name calling or resorting to "well then buy something else" comments would not be bright. And I am writing as a fanboie and quite proud of it. The way some 'follower' react to any criticism is embarrassing for some fans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
It's called the ignore feature and it's used by quite a few folks. Gee amazing how that works isn't it?
It is called a forum because people come here to discuss. Gee, amazing how that works, isn't it?
Fantastic. I likely have still been here much longer.
<sigh> why do I always have to explain simple, stupid things to some people.
OK, if you need a definition to understand the metaphore:
Since it has been submitted, but is neither approved nor denied, it is in a state in between. It is on hold, not only while Apple examines the app and it merits or lack thereof, but while they weigh how to respond. It is an apt metaphore.
So, no, not full of shit, just using words you don't understand. I will try to use smaller words for you.
Let's see. Ordered first Mac Jan 20, 1984. Now nearing my 100th. On web basically day one. Subscribed to MW, AI and a host of others virtually the day they became available.
As to state of limbo, are you suggesting the anything that is being reviewed or in review is such. Like a pre-op patients medical record while he is on the gurny outside the OR, your income tax submission, application for a bank loan, etc.
As to state of limbo, are you suggesting the anything that is being reviewed or in review is such. Like a pre-op patients medical record while he is on the gurny outside the OR, your income tax submission, application for a bank loan, etc.
If you are on a gurney and have no idea if you will have the surgery or not, then yeah. Or if you were waiting for approval for a bank loan and the bank simply tells you to continue to wait while they continue to review, then yeah.
Sure, and I'd make that same statement if I had to render an official opinion to a government body and refer that question to Google. Never say more than you have to and never speculate on something you don't know.
But if I had to play expert, I'd say it was unlikely given what I know. Odds are Apple never even bothered to check since it's so unlikely. It's not hard to put a packet sniffer on and look for VOIP packets but there's also no reason that they should have been asked the question when Google could have been asked directly. Funny that they didn't in their list of Google questions.
My answer to you was simply for informational purposes...not what Apple should have answered.
Agreed in part. My lab guy suggest that a packet sniffer wouldn't really work once the message is out the door. Accessing Googles servers and surely the security protocols would prevent it.
As one did comment, if it were possible, tracking internet pedophiles or sales scams for example, would be a no-brainer.
However, somebody else has a difference of opinion re how the GV works.
Comments
...
Sorry I'm old and I don't see smiley faces as any input to a serious response. In my eyes it just makes it look like grade school. But I will give you a STAR on your report card to show your parents.
Sorry I'm old and I don't see smiley faces as any input to a serious response. In my eyes it just makes it look like grade school. But I will give you a STAR on your report card to show your parents.
Yep, you just want to "not see" that you responded twice to the same post with name calling and zero content.
Oooh...nice try with the age thing. Well, not really. But I think we're almost up to 20% of your total content devoted to me. Nice to have a fan.
Hey, I found a reserve pile of smilies, here you go.
Why would those 'free-loaders' she invited for dinner give over a large portion of their disposable income? As I wrote, "Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner?".
And how about if mum was driving a red convertible, wearing flouro roller blade? The analogy is dead. Just let it go.
Go back and read everything Tulkas has written. It sounds entirely reasonable to me.
If we go back and assess Apple's submission criticially instead of simply accepting it as the truth because it is a response to a government request, it's pretty clear that while not being untruthful, it is clearly leading the suggestion that the application puts away the core telephony function of the iPhone. If someone can explain to me how that is possible, I'm all ears.
Some of the responses are absolutely breathtaking for a vendor of Apple's calibre. They didn't know whether the application did VOIP? A four word email would have solved that question and yet without a hint of irony they are suggesting they are not sure? Sounds like they want to lean on their contractual provisions with AT&T as some sort of defensive manoeuvre.
Take the following two statements:
"I didn't win", and
"I came last"
Both could be truthful but one is certainly more accurate than other. Looks to me if you take apart the response that Apple is being truthful, more than accurate. Of course they have an army of lawyers to provide truthful answers, but that's it. Doesn't mean it's accurate.
AT&T also issued a statement Friday denying any involvement in the state of apparent limbo the Google Voice iPhone software currently finds itself in. AT&T and Apple both stated that AT&T was never contacted by Apple for consultation on the Google Voice application, but that the decision was made solely by the iPhone maker. In the AT&T statement, Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president, external and legislative affairs, encouraged Google Voice users to access the application from the Web.
"Let me state unequivocally, AT&T had no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store," Cicconi said. "AT&T was not asked about the matter by Apple at any time, nor did we offer any view one way or the other."
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Oh, that AT&T's statement is definitely not fair. Will they admit no role in having become #1 on the market because of iPhone sales?
Apple Market Cap Surpasses Google?s Value
This has really degenerated, guys. You both have some good things to say, so why don't you stick to the topic than the name-calling.
Especially, the more seasoned poster.......
Eh...sometimes it's amusing to feed the trolls. But I'll stop here and just ignore his little games.
If we go back and assess Apple's submission criticially instead of simply accepting it as the truth because it is a response to a government request, it's pretty clear that while not being untruthful, it is clearly leading the suggestion that the application puts away the core telephony function of the iPhone. If someone can explain to me how that is possible, I'm all ears.
Lemme see, when you replace the voice mail, contacts, dialing, SMS capabilities with your own I'd say that you are attempting to replace the core telephony function of the iPhone with your own offering. You're reducing the iPhone to nothing more than a host to the google app from the perspective of phone functionality.
Nice if you can get away with it. But there's no reason for Apple to play your game.
From Google's perspective, reducing OSX to nothing more than commodity linux is fine. Just as it is fine for Apple to reduce ATT to nothing more than a pipe. The difference is ATT wants/needs the iPhone. Apple doesn't want/need GV.
Some of the responses are absolutely breathtaking for a vendor of Apple's calibre. They didn't know whether the application did VOIP? A four word email would have solved that question and yet without a hint of irony they are suggesting they are not sure? Sounds like they want to lean on their contractual provisions with AT&T as some sort of defensive manoeuvre.
It is VERY unlikely that GV works without VOIP. You could implement it without VOIP but it would be silly. Still, there's no reason that google would answer your hypothetical 4 word email with a 4 word email of its own: "That information is proprietary".
ATT doesn't come into play because the VOIP functionality is likely all on the server side...most probably anyway. If I HAD to answer an official inquiry I would hedge that statement a little just to be safe and let Google answer that question.
Take the following two statements:
"I didn't win", and
"I came last"
Both could be truthful but one is certainly more accurate than other. Looks to me if you take apart the response that Apple is being truthful, more than accurate. Of course they have an army of lawyers to provide truthful answers, but that's it. Doesn't mean it's accurate.
Gee, Apple spins things to their own interests. Surprising. So does Google. Google's response, the non-redacted parts anyway, also spins things to make Google look better. Interesting that Google is hiding something from the public isn't it?
My impression is a lot like yours, the word used doesn't really seem to fit the usual use of the word, but is probably still a valid use.
I think it depends on the intention behind the word replace. I'm pretty sure the regular phone app is still there, but the GV app can be used such that the regular phone app isn't necessary to those that want to use GV.
It would seem to me that Apple should have enough software and equipment to know whether or not this GV app is trying to be a VOIP app, for them to say they don't know seems to be a diversionary tactic. Every report I've seen suggests that GV isn't doing VOIP to a phone, that it's still using regular air time.
Asked and Answered:
Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T?s 3G network?
Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application.
Once a call from an iPhone, or any other phone for that matter, is routed through an external server(s), just how could one determine if any part of the call is being transmitted via VoIP technology over a 3G network, if you are not apprised of the protocol employed in the process?
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.
No, but one has the right to discuss limitations, problems and issues that one observes with a company. No matter who that company might be.
Others, the not so bright and the cult-like followers, simply say "oh, well, if they tell it is right, then it must be so."
Who claimed any authority to dictate change? Oh I see, yet another fabrication from you. You are full of them in this thread. You posts are fairly worthless in that sense.
If you don't like reading posts you don't agree with here, why don't you stop reading? See, that is an idiotic statement...likely one you might actually agree with.
Asked and Answered:
Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T?s 3G network?
Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application.
Once a call from an iPhone, or any other phone for that matter, is routed through an external server(s), just how could one determine if any part of the call is being transmitted via VoIP technology over a 3G network, if you are not apprised of the protocol employed in the process?
GV calls you first and then connects you when you make an outbound call (to get caller id to show your GV number). I figure that's all the app does (via IP) although it would be a more seamless experience by using VOIP on the iPhone side to skip the ring back part. It's a big help just to skip the call GV first then enter the number you REALLY want to call next.
Possible that the GV app uses VOIP but highly unlikely given Google knows that ATT doesn't want VOIP over their 3G service. If you aren't going to carry the conversation using VOIP over 3G there's little to no need to use it for any other function on the phone itself.
No, but one has the right to discuss limitations, problems and issues that one observes with a company. No matter who that company might be.
Others, the not so bright and the cult-like followers, simply say "oh, well, if they tell it is right, then it must be so."
Because maybe we've looked into and think it is right and there's no real problem? Nah...easier to just call em fanbois and "not so bright".
If you don't like reading posts you don't agree with here, why don't you stop reading? See, that is an idiotic statement...likely one you might actually agree with.
It's called the ignore feature and it's used by quite a few folks. Gee amazing how that works isn't it?
GV calls you first and then connects you when you make an outbound call (to get caller id to show your GV number). I figure that's all the app does (via IP) although it would be a more seamless experience by using VOIP on the iPhone side to skip the ring back part. It's a big help just to skip the call GV first then enter the number you REALLY want to call next.
Possible that the GV app uses VOIP but highly unlikely given Google knows that ATT doesn't want VOIP over their 3G service. If you aren't going to carry the conversation using VOIP over 3G there's little to no need to use it for any other function on the phone itself.
So, the point remains as Apple stated, i.e., "Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application."
So, the point remains as Apple stated, i.e., "Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application."
Sure, and I'd make that same statement if I had to render an official opinion to a government body and refer that question to Google. Never say more than you have to and never speculate on something you don't know.
But if I had to play expert, I'd say it was unlikely given what I know. Odds are Apple never even bothered to check since it's so unlikely. It's not hard to put a packet sniffer on and look for VOIP packets but there's also no reason that they should have been asked the question when Google could have been asked directly. Funny that they didn't in their list of Google questions.
My answer to you was simply for informational purposes...not what Apple should have answered.
Okay, you're not outraged and a huge fan.
That's right.r
Uh, right. Because GV isn't trying to replace existing phone ecosystems with a Google managed one.
In the sense of offering an alternative or replacement? Yup. you got it. In the sense of removing Apple's features, no. Apple's own example make that clear to anyone able to read. As far as it being a complete replacement/alternative ecosystem...yes, they appear to want to provide that. Many other apps replace the individual features that GV would..So the problem is simply that GV would do it all and do it better?
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.
You analogy only makes sense if MS Stores were the only way to load software on a PC. Since not allowing something into the app store prevents it from being legitimately installed on the iPhone, only an analogy of preventing software from being installed on a PC is a comparable analogy.
If Sony barred it from their system only because it was from Apple, I would disagree with that move as well. It would be wrong to do that. They have the right to do it, but that doesn't make it right.
It does own the ecosystem. Try getting stuff to run on the PS3 that Sony doesn't want.
So, the reason it is right is because they can? This is why I suggested that you not use their ownership of the ecosystem as the rationale. Your original explanation that Apple should not allow GV was because Google is a competitor. The mechanism of how they are able to do it (their close system) does not provide justification.
So again, by your reasoning, Apple was right to do it, 1) because Google is a competitor and 2) because the can.
Apple competes with MS and MS could easily prevent them or make it difficult to run iTunes, You are right. Perhaps they should.
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*).
Their actions were wrong. Their monopolist position made it illegal. But wrong is still wrong.
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.
So again, by your reasoning comes down to, Apple was right to do it, 1) because Google is a competitor and 2) because the can. Very flexible.
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.
You are right, block was the wrong choice of words. But, they were held to be taking actions to harm Netscape. This actions were wrong.
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.
Are people buying content on iTunes? Yes, they are. Were music sales on CD dropping quickly? yes they were. Did Apple model help drive sales for content providers? yes it did. So, overall was it good for the content providers? yes, it was.
Could the content providers simply want more, both money and control? No, not those guys.
I would suggest that all of your "thinking" has zero impact on the behavior of Apple.
Oh good one. I would suggest that you saying "buy another phone" every time someone has a complaint about Apple is stupid. There, we both have are opinions. But, Apple has shown they are often willing to pay attention when customers/developer/partners start bitching.
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.
When someone (not you) explains to me that they take issue with critics of Apple, not because they are a fan or a customer, but because they are a 'follower' that starts to sound rather cultish to me.
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.
So you expect discussing things on a forum to enact change? I expect to engage in dialog. But, those that are not capable of intelligent dialog resort immediately to canned responses "buy a pre", "you hate apple"...very similar to the "You hate America" or "If you don't like it, get out of America" bullshit that some rednecks resort to in their 'discussions'
As a "huge Apple fan" with deep thoughts on the subject you might consider that.
Absolutely. I have been called a Mac zealot and had people dismiss arguments I have in favour of Apple or the Mac or iPhone by saying I am too biased for apple. But, if that is their first response, their first counter to my arguments, then it is a pretty stupid response. I see it from both sides.
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?
I have dismissed only what was presented incorrectly. If anyone presents facts or analysis that I makes sense, whether it agrees with my position or not, i will acknowledge it or not comment on it, but certainly not dismiss it.
maybe some are tired. But for their initial answers to be non-scensical name calling is weak. If they out right lie, that is weak. If they unintentionally fabricate something but then refuse to see it when explained, that is pathetic.
if they disagree with me, that is fine. Lots of intelligent people here and all will have their own opinions.
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).
No bias at all. Google allowed GV Mobile and others to create front end interfaces for their GV services on the iphone. That is a fact. Not a bias.
If Apple did the front end, as you suggested, they would control the interface. If that is the only reason for not being approved, then sure, they might go for it. But, since it is a free service and there would be no additional revenue and Google would still control the service itself, why would Apple approve it?
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.
I do have an activated account, but i don't use it yet as it is not usable in Canada. But, my perception of right and wrong goes beyond what affects me. Maybe some people only see wrong when it personally affects them. (TOTALLY UNRELATED AND BAD ANALOGY ALERT: maybe if more people saw things as wrong that did not have to affect them personally we wouldn't have thinks like Rwanda and the Sudan happen again)
I am an iPhone user and hoped to use GV on the iPhone when it is available here. Is your point that I should only be concerned once it affects me? That I should only think their actions are wrong once they affect me?
Does GV not being available ruin my life? No. Does it disappoint me that my favorite company implements policies and take actions that i disagree with? Yep. Am I outraged? No. Am I disappointed to the point of not buying Apple products? No. Am I disappointed to the point of discussing it on a forum? Yep.
Funny, I like GV. I just don't really care there's no app.
At that is perfectly fine.
I don't think so. (psst?don't rely on my current handle. A couple of major moves, a loss of my former email address and a change of services?)
Fantastic. I likely have still been here much longer.
Why would those 'free-loaders' she invited for dinner give over a large portion of their disposable income? As I wrote, "Image how your mother would feel if every guest she invited for dinner?"
You are right, but that is because it was such a bad analogy to begin with. I am not a guest of Apple, I am a paying customer. As such, I am hardly a freeloader if and when I complain.
Man you are so full of shit.
Better check out the definition. Apple is actively "? [continuing] to study it", the issue (not the app) is being pondered on and not as you tried to imply, disregarded or forgotten.
The only state of limbo is your mind. IMO.
<sigh> why do I always have to explain simple, stupid things to some people.
OK, if you need a definition to understand the metaphore:
a place or state of restraint or confinement b : a place or state of neglect or oblivion <proposals kept in limbo> c : an intermediate or transitional place or state d : a state of uncertainty
Merriam Webster dictionary
Since it has been submitted, but is neither approved nor denied, it is in a state in between. It is on hold, not only while Apple examines the app and it merits or lack thereof, but while they weigh how to respond. It is an apt metaphore.
So, no, not full of shit, just using words you don't understand. I will try to use smaller words for you.
Edit: removed comments that were to personal on review.
GV calls you first and then connects you when you make an outbound call (to get caller id to show your GV number). I figure that's all the app does (via IP) although it would be a more seamless experience by using VOIP on the iPhone side to skip the ring back part. It's a big help just to skip the call GV first then enter the number you REALLY want to call next.
Possible that the GV app uses VOIP but highly unlikely given Google knows that ATT doesn't want VOIP over their 3G service. If you aren't going to carry the conversation using VOIP over 3G there's little to no need to use it for any other function on the phone itself.
Very good description.
There has been talk of the mobile apps from Google for GV implementing VOIP. But if the App on the iPhone initiated calls over VOIP, Apple would know immediately during their review process.
Because maybe we've looked into and think it is right and there's no real problem? Nah...easier to just call em fanbois and "not so bright".
That there is no problem is your opinion and is it is as right as the person that thinks their actions are wrong.
Name calling or resorting to "well then buy something else" comments would not be bright. And I am writing as a fanboie and quite proud of it. The way some 'follower' react to any criticism is embarrassing for some fans.
It's called the ignore feature and it's used by quite a few folks. Gee amazing how that works isn't it?
It is called a forum because people come here to discuss. Gee, amazing how that works, isn't it?
Fantastic. I likely have still been here much longer.
<sigh> why do I always have to explain simple, stupid things to some people.
OK, if you need a definition to understand the metaphore:
Since it has been submitted, but is neither approved nor denied, it is in a state in between. It is on hold, not only while Apple examines the app and it merits or lack thereof, but while they weigh how to respond. It is an apt metaphore.
So, no, not full of shit, just using words you don't understand. I will try to use smaller words for you.
Let's see. Ordered first Mac Jan 20, 1984. Now nearing my 100th. On web basically day one. Subscribed to MW, AI and a host of others virtually the day they became available.
As to state of limbo, are you suggesting the anything that is being reviewed or in review is such. Like a pre-op patients medical record while he is on the gurny outside the OR, your income tax submission, application for a bank loan, etc.
As to state of limbo, are you suggesting the anything that is being reviewed or in review is such. Like a pre-op patients medical record while he is on the gurny outside the OR, your income tax submission, application for a bank loan, etc.
If you are on a gurney and have no idea if you will have the surgery or not, then yeah. Or if you were waiting for approval for a bank loan and the bank simply tells you to continue to wait while they continue to review, then yeah.
Is it really that difficult a metaphor for you?
Sure, and I'd make that same statement if I had to render an official opinion to a government body and refer that question to Google. Never say more than you have to and never speculate on something you don't know.
But if I had to play expert, I'd say it was unlikely given what I know. Odds are Apple never even bothered to check since it's so unlikely. It's not hard to put a packet sniffer on and look for VOIP packets but there's also no reason that they should have been asked the question when Google could have been asked directly. Funny that they didn't in their list of Google questions.
My answer to you was simply for informational purposes...not what Apple should have answered.
Agreed in part. My lab guy suggest that a packet sniffer wouldn't really work once the message is out the door. Accessing Googles servers and surely the security protocols would prevent it.
As one did comment, if it were possible, tracking internet pedophiles or sales scams for example, would be a no-brainer.
However, somebody else has a difference of opinion re how the GV works.
"Google Voice is a free Internet service that uses VoIP technology to link phone numbers together. http://www.crunchbase.com/product/google-voice