I will, if they see fit to deliver it. They may instead see your claims for what they are.
However, if someone makes unsubstantiated claims, which the have no reason to believe is true, they have lied. They are then by definition a liar. To call someone out is neither an insult nor an ad hom attack. It is a statement of fact.
That's true, but you didn't need to use a pedophile example. Not conducive for a civil discussion like laying land mines isn't conducive to traffic. Not that you would ever acknowledge that, at least I doubt you would.
An unfounded assertion is not the same as a lie. It's only a lie when the person making the unfounded assertion is aware that the assertion is false. In the case where the assertion is false, but they are not aware that it is false, they are simply mistaken. It can also be the case that an unfounded assertion is true, despite the lack of evidence to support it, so, being unfounded does not make it false. And, of course, if it were unfounded but true, it could not, by definition, be a lie.
So, there are always a number of possibilities regarding any assertion that anyone makes, be it founded or unfounded, true or false, and only one of those is an instance of a lie. So, perhaps it would be better to not start calling each other liers unless you are entirely certain that a) the statements made by another are false and b) that they know they are false.
(OK, well, I'm over simplifying a bit, there's also the situation were a statement is true, but the person making it believes it to be false. I leave it as an exercise for the readers to determine if this specific case is a lie or not.)
If you make an accusation that you have no reason to believe is true and no substantiation, you have lied. If you were to go to court and accuse someone of something, without knowing whether it was true or not, you have lied. If you make something up you have lied.
He is upset because he has been called on his claims.
That's true, but you didn't need to use a pedophile example. Not conducive for a civil discussion like laying land mines isn't conducive to traffic. Not that you would ever acknowledge that, at least I doubt you would.
It was an extreme example, but I was obviously not calling him a pedo. He did not seem to understand simple explanations, so an extreme example seemed to be in order to express the concept.
So, let's see. Google Voice replaces Apple's phone services so Apple won't allow it.
On the Mac OS, Firefox may replace Safari; but, that's not a game killer.
Microsoft got in trouble for refusing to allow PCs to ship with a rival browser, Netscape. Now, Apple is refusing to allow a rival phone system on the iPhone. (Isn't even really a phone system.
It was an extreme example, but I was obviously not calling him a pedo. He did not seem to understand simple explanations, so an extreme example seemed to be in order to express the concept.
Guess it didn't work.
I still call it a land mine. You didn't need to name a specific person, and you should know how it can be easily misconstrued.
MS Office did not put Wang out of business, not even out of the word processing business by itself. MS Office was not competing against Wang, it was competing against Lotus, WordPerfect, Quattro, etc., all of which were priced competitively. Admittedly, some of these players were late to the Windows game (although, this is at least partly because MS made it difficult for them to not be late) but it is also the case that MS included undocumented APIs in Windows exclusively for the use of Office products. There was no level playing field. MS leveraged its control of the OS into control of the office productivity software market.
Was this a massive win for users? I don't think so. It's resulted in the complete elimination of competition in this software category (sorry, but, OpenOffice is not offering real competition at this time), and users are paying for it in price, usability, and bloated inefficient software.
I've never liked Word on either the PC or Mac. And I'd use iWork on the Mac if Apple gave me the simple option to save in .doc or .docx - which I need to work on the files on PC's and share them with the 99% of the non-iWork using world - as the default save instead of having to do a dance involving going to the Finder to delete duplicate files.
(Just what the world needed - more proprietary formats for word processing and spreadsheet files)
But my Word processor of choice is still WordPerfect because of the total control provided by its reveal codes function (and it will save in .doc/x) - and the only reason my next Mac will be outfitted with Windows and virtualization software.
It's good to see I'm not the only one who remembers MS's tactics during the DOS/Windows switch when it promised ISV's a) continuing DOS development and b) promised the world it had set up a "firewall" between its OS and Applications groups so that all ISV's would have the same access to API's at the same time MS Office programmers got it.
So here's a history lesson for y'all:
The PC trade press (at that time primarily InfoWorld and PC Week) openly scoffed at the assertion. Meanwhile WordPerfect, #1 in word processing at the time, took MS at its word and invested huge resources in grafting its own mostly graphical UI to develop the interesting but doomed WP 6.0 for DOS - which left relatively few resources available for building a true Windows version.
By the time the trusting folks in Utah who bought into MS's gospel of "co-opetition" grasped they'd been snoggered and turned all their efforts to Win development (which was their bad in retrospect), MS Word for Win was by default grabbing huge gains in market share, and WP for Win was nowhere to be seen month after month after year - and WP was complaining loudly that MS kept shifting the Win API's every time their beta was stable.
And the line from one of those two publications I'll never forget (I think it was PC Week) was that the motto in the Windows API group was "the coding's not done until WordPerfect won't run." While oddly, the "firewalled off" Word coding group had no trouble keeping up with the changes.
When WP for Win was finally released, they launched a massive ad campaign showing fleets of semi trucks delivering the product to the pent-up masses, but it still had issues for some time and the damage had been done.
And when Novell's Ray Noorda - also in UT's "Salt Valley" - and also being "co-opteted" into irrelevance launched an ego-driven, ill-conceived and way too late effort to compete from the Server thru OS thru the Office level by picking up the corpses of DR-DOS, WordPerfect (and the product which became GroupWise), Borland's Quattro Pro and the Paradox database - all with separate code bases, and dBase faltered, the PC OS and Office and Server and Messaging landscape we see today took shape.
Corel, battered by Adobe, picked up WordPerfect Office where it survives as a small share company, while Novell's remaining chips are in the Linux market. Sun, while Java and Javascript survive, was never really a PC player, and is now becoming a division of Oracle, which was always primarily an enterprise-focused company. Netscape's assets ended up languishing inside of AOL, but also spawned (unless I'm mistaken) the true succcess story of OpenSource, Mozilla and FireFox.
The main PC software survivor of that time, outside of smallish Quicken (which I believe was only saved by the Justice Dept keeping MS from gobbling it up), chastened and restructured IBM, no longer in the "IBM PC" biz, nor several others it used to compete in, vibrantly resurgent Apple and MS itself - turned out to be iconoclastic Adobe, which fought off MS's attempts to horn in on image editing, and somehow turned PDF and Flash into (flawed) standards.
Leaving the present and future stage filled with the cloud and iDevice players. Where MS is less dominant, a more conservative competitor after its collisions with the US gov't and the EU, but not out of it. And you all know the others up to now - with Apple, Google and MS the media focus.
But paradigm shifts occur constantly in the tech world, and each opens new opportunities for disruptive tech to emerge. So it'll always be a riveting story. Even if I still miss WP being the standard for my main axe.
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.
And again, tell me how its possible to do this. AFAIK you can't do it. That is 'replace'. To put one thing in place of another. It can't be done.
Quote:
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.
Not on point.
Quote:
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".
Depends on how you characterise the use of VOIP. It might use VOIP in the cloud but there's nothing to suggest it does to device. In fact, you can use the service to a POTS. What does that say about the use of VOIP?
Quote:
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.
And you've hit the nail on the head.
Quote:
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?
Again, not surprising, no. The point is I am asking you to read between the lines. You've already acknowledged spin, but think carefully about what they're not saying and also how they've couched what they did say.
And again, tell me how its possible to do this. AFAIK you can't do it. That is 'replace'. To put one thing in place of another. It can't be done.
Are we still arguing about the meaning of the word 'replace'? The word has enough latitude in meaning that Apple's use of it is almost certainly correct while the precise meaning intended may remain uncertain to us. If anyone's argument hinges on the precise meaning of 'replace' intended, it's probably not a very strong argument to begin with.
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.
You can test to see if the iPhone app uses VOIP protocols using a sniffer.
GV works on Google's side via VOIP. That's a given. But the app on the iPhone doesn't have to because GV is built to accomodate any kind of phone via ringbacks.
AT&T can't object to folks using VOIP to call iPhones...and they don't care anyways. It still costs minutes.
And again, tell me how its possible to do this. AFAIK you can't do it. That is 'replace'. To put one thing in place of another. It can't be done.
Right. Tell me that my GV number doesn't replace my iPhone number. If it didn't then the entire point of using GV is lost (call one number, I get it everywhere).
If I replace my iPhone number (no one ever calls) with another then pray tell how I have not replaced ALL of the iPhone telephony functionality with GV? It's effectively a 3G iPod Touch that runs the GV app for telephony functions.
Quote:
Not on point.
Entirely on point as to how GV harms Apple.
Quote:
Depends on how you characterise the use of VOIP. It might use VOIP in the cloud but there's nothing to suggest it does to device. In fact, you can use the service to a POTS. What does that say about the use of VOIP?
Google uses VOIP to get calls and route them to all of your phones. It does NOT need to use them on the iPhone app. I've said so in this thread.
Someone calls your GV number...which is a VOIP number that connects to some Google server, which initiates call forwarding to all of your other numbers.
When you call GV, it uses VOIP to ringback and bridge the call between you and who you wanted to call.
Quote:
Again, not surprising, no. The point is I am asking you to read between the lines. You've already acknowledged spin, but think carefully about what they're not saying and also how they've couched what they did say.
It isn't in any hidden message and the come out and say it. Apple doesn't want Google taking the iPhone telephony experience away from the iPhone.
Why is that so hard to believe? Because folks don't want to accept that the GV number is intended to replace all of your other numbers? Because there must be some hidden agenda on Apple's part because you don't get that if your iPhone number gets replaced THEN ALL THE NATIVE IPHONE PHONE FUNCTIONS ALSO GET REPLACED? Even if they physically remain on the device?
There is talk of GV developing a full VoIP app/service, but I have only heard of that for the android so far. You cannot yet, for example, make a call from your PC/Mac and talk on the PC/Mac. You can initiate it on your PC/Mac and have it ring both your phone and the person you are calling, but those phones can be landlines or cellphones or voip lines.
Geez, this won't be hard for Google given that GTalk voice uses Jingle uses RTP to transmit voice. Heck you can connect GTalk to Asterisk if you want and it's not like Google doesn't have the entire GV infrastructure to use for gateways.
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?
The reason that Verizon doesn't want Apple is because Apple would reduce Verizon to providing bandwidth rather than value added services. It reduces Verizon to being a pipe. So Verizon said no.
The reason that Apple doesn't want GV is because GV would reduce the iPhone to being a 3G enabled device that runs the GV app. It significantly diminishes the iPhone's competitive advantage against other smart phone competitors. So Apple said no.
Quote:
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, what you're saying is that Apple MUST support a competitor in destroying the value in its products and the economic harm does not provide justification for saying "You own Android, do it there and not on our platform".
This isn't much different that Palm hijacking iTunes.
Quote:
So again, by your reasoning, Apple was right to do it, 1) because Google is a competitor and 2) because the can.
Only if you ignore that GV is attempting to subvert the iPhone experience and commoditizing the platform.
Quote:
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?
Because they would then still control the user experience of the phone. GV would be part of the back end solution.
Does Apple want to replicate all that GV functionality in MobileMe? Not likely. So at that point it doesn't matter. What the don't want is the same telephony experience on the iPhone, Palm Pre, Blackberry, WinMo and Android phones.
They want to continue to have a competitive advantage in user experience because they are good at that and the other companies suck. Reducing everyone to the GV common demoninator means mediocrity across the board and the base GV functionality (call one number, ring everywhere) is too compelling to ignore.
So for the short term the smart response is to stick into app store limbo and figure out what the right course of action is.
Right. Tell me that my GV number doesn't replace my iPhone number. If it didn't then the entire point of using GV is lost (call one number, I get it everywhere).
That wasn't the question being asked. Tell me how Google view replaces built in telephony. You can't, because it doesn't, and it can't.
Quote:
If I replace my iPhone number (no one ever calls) with another then pray tell how I have not replaced ALL of the iPhone telephony functionality with GV? It's effectively a 3G iPod Touch that runs the GV app for telephony functions.
Well, for a start, you haven't replaced your iPhone number, have you? It's still there and it still can be used. Just because you may have chosen to put it to one side does not mean it has been replaced. If you gave out that number, would you be shocked if your phone rang? I guess you would be if you had 'replaced' it.
Quote:
Apple doesn't want Google taking the iPhone telephony experience away from the iPhone.
Quote:
Why is that so hard to believe? Because folks don't want to accept that the GV number is intended to replace all of your other numbers?
Don't you think that's a choice people should be able to make? It is completely asinine to suggest that a user of GV would expect to leverage all the functionality of the mobile device. Even so, they can if they wish, simply by using the iPhones built in telephony which can never be replaced.
Quote:
Because there must be some hidden agenda on Apple's part because you don't get that if your iPhone number gets replaced THEN ALL THE NATIVE IPHONE PHONE FUNCTIONS ALSO GET REPLACED? Even if they physically remain on the device?
So when the call is routed to your iPhone, does this GV app handle the call? It doesn't, because it can't. And when anyone calls your phone the GV app handles it how? It doesn't, because it can't. And when someone leaves a voice message on your iPhone number does that somehow magically never get to VVM? No, it doesn't.
Quote:
That's real stupid.
No, what's real stupid is a response from apple like GV "prevent[s] voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple?s Visual Voicemail" when the far more accurate description is that the user chooses to bypass it (again, a choice on the part of the user). In fact, that's not even inaccurate, that's a lie. The voicemail was never intended to be stored on the phone in the first place. A lie as in, the person making the assertion knows the assertion is false. In no way can VVM be considered disabled should one choose not to use it.
Anyways, I choose to end there. One won't convince the other so there's no point getting further worked up.
The reason that Verizon doesn't want Apple is because Apple would reduce Verizon to providing bandwidth rather than value added services. It reduces Verizon to being a pipe. So Verizon said no.
The reason that Apple doesn't want GV is because GV would reduce the iPhone to being a 3G enabled device that runs the GV app. It significantly diminishes the iPhone's competitive advantage against other smart phone competitors. So Apple said no.
You are probably quite right, that this is what Apple felt and as the reason for their decision/lack of, on the app. But, what you see as diminishing their competitive advantage, I see it as only offering an alternative. If the iPhone interfaces are all left intact, and they are an advantage, then the advantage still exists.
There is no one at Google with a gun to your head saying that if you use their GV service you must use it for all of your phones. You believe that not doing so eliminates the benefit of even using GV. You said you use GV or have an account. Have you eliminated all of your other phone numbers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
So, what you're saying is that Apple MUST support a competitor in destroying the value in its products and the economic harm does not provide justification for saying "You own Android, do it there and not on our platform".
This isn't much different that Palm hijacking iTunes.
No I am saying that Google being a competitor for device space is not justification for denying the app (or more accurately, for not approving it). Just as it was wrong for MS to use their platform of their OSes to act against competitors in the application space (whether their monopoly made it illegal or not).
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Only if you ignore that GV is attempting to subvert the iPhone experience and commoditizing the platform.
or perhaps trying to offer alternatives to users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Because they would then still control the user experience of the phone. GV would be part of the back end solution.
Yet that back end would still be google...for everything including features like VVM. Apple mentioned the storage of VM as a specific issue they have. If GV, the service, handles all calls, regardless of iPhone, Android, your home phone, by using a single phone number, then it that would have to include VM. This is what I meant by the back end still being google controlled and why I don't think Apple would go for it with their current concerns.
Edit for addition: though it is true that the iPhone VVM could be changed to pull VVM from the GV servers, likely very easily, this still leave Apple out of the loop in where the messages are stored...maybe they wouldn't actually care. Certainly their carrier partners that invested in Apple VVM servers might not like it. The more I think about it, this probably would be a workable idea, but it would cost Apple a lot of good will with the carriers to implement GV services on the iPhone themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Does Apple want to replicate all that GV functionality in MobileMe? Not likely. So at that point it doesn't matter. What the don't want is the same telephony experience on the iPhone, Palm Pre, Blackberry, WinMo and Android phones.
They want to continue to have a competitive advantage in user experience because they are good at that and the other companies suck. Reducing everyone to the GV common demoninator means mediocrity across the board and the base GV functionality (call one number, ring everywhere) is too compelling to ignore.
Again, all likely accurate in describing Apple's concerns. But, as you say, Apple is good at the interface and that is why users love their products and is one of Apple's advantages. If google's GV app also sucked in the interface, then users would not use it. So again, the threat is that Google might make it too compelling, too good or too convenient?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
So for the short term the smart response is to stick into app store limbo and figure out what the right course of action is.
Careful, using the word limbo to describe the situation is going to leave you with some explaining to do.
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.
Figured I would respond to this again separately. As I said in another thread, this idea is growing on me. Actually, I just read posting at theiphoneblog that had a similar suggestion.
There was another that had took it a step further. Perhaps the gigantic data centre Apple is building might be intended to provide GV like services. Again, this would piss off a lot of their carrier partners, but damn it sounds like a good idea. I'd love to see Apple do this and also allow GV on the iPhone. Let them compete on merit of the services, interface, etc. Maybe this is why Apple has not approved the GV app nor rejected the app. Perhaps the response they are pondering is their own competing service. Though it would seem unreasonable to try to delay until their data centre is done (has it even broken ground yet?)
I love fair competition between great companies, so I would really like to see this.
Given Jobs description of his feelings about carriers in the past, it wouldn't be unexpected for him to use the massive popularity of the iPhone to do an end run around the carriers now (or soon). I for one would not be sad to see Apple stick it to the carriers and cut them out of the picture.
"There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly.... We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week"
mmm, assuming these guys work 8 hours a day and 5 days per week, that means on average they have to review more than 10 apps every hour - or one every 6 minutes!
In would be much happier with the iPhone if I could customize it even though Apple's design is outstanding. I am sure - if asked - Google would confirm to Apple's design criteria.
Google Voice offers MUCH more unique features than the iPhone/ATT telephone and there may be duplicate functions in some areas but Google Voice is a lot more versatile phone service than what ATT provides. I my opinion neither of those objections justify the rejection. Also, whether I am comfortable keeping my messages and address book on Google's service or not is - again - my problem.
I guess Apple isn't really that concerned about our contacts going to Google. Snow Leopard has contact syncing with google and yahoo account built right in. Maybe they only have a concern about contacts on the iPhone being synced to google. But, since the iPhone syncs with the contacts on the Mac and now the Mac has built in syncing of contacts to google....
John B.: still waiting for you to provide any proof of your inane assertions that GV sends our contacts to google without ever asking for user confirmation or even informing the user. Not unexpected of you though, is it?
I still think Apple should develop their own version of the Google Voice concept (with a better UI!) for the iPhone and cut Google out of the deal entirely.
Comments
I will, if they see fit to deliver it. They may instead see your claims for what they are.
However, if someone makes unsubstantiated claims, which the have no reason to believe is true, they have lied. They are then by definition a liar. To call someone out is neither an insult nor an ad hom attack. It is a statement of fact.
That's true, but you didn't need to use a pedophile example. Not conducive for a civil discussion like laying land mines isn't conducive to traffic. Not that you would ever acknowledge that, at least I doubt you would.
An unfounded assertion is not the same as a lie. It's only a lie when the person making the unfounded assertion is aware that the assertion is false. In the case where the assertion is false, but they are not aware that it is false, they are simply mistaken. It can also be the case that an unfounded assertion is true, despite the lack of evidence to support it, so, being unfounded does not make it false. And, of course, if it were unfounded but true, it could not, by definition, be a lie.
So, there are always a number of possibilities regarding any assertion that anyone makes, be it founded or unfounded, true or false, and only one of those is an instance of a lie. So, perhaps it would be better to not start calling each other liers unless you are entirely certain that a) the statements made by another are false and b) that they know they are false.
(OK, well, I'm over simplifying a bit, there's also the situation were a statement is true, but the person making it believes it to be false. I leave it as an exercise for the readers to determine if this specific case is a lie or not.)
If you make an accusation that you have no reason to believe is true and no substantiation, you have lied. If you were to go to court and accuse someone of something, without knowing whether it was true or not, you have lied. If you make something up you have lied.
He is upset because he has been called on his claims.
That's true, but you didn't need to use a pedophile example. Not conducive for a civil discussion like laying land mines isn't conducive to traffic. Not that you would ever acknowledge that, at least I doubt you would.
It was an extreme example, but I was obviously not calling him a pedo. He did not seem to understand simple explanations, so an extreme example seemed to be in order to express the concept.
Guess it didn't work.
On the Mac OS, Firefox may replace Safari; but, that's not a game killer.
Microsoft got in trouble for refusing to allow PCs to ship with a rival browser, Netscape. Now, Apple is refusing to allow a rival phone system on the iPhone. (Isn't even really a phone system.
I have to decide against Apple on this one.
It was an extreme example, but I was obviously not calling him a pedo. He did not seem to understand simple explanations, so an extreme example seemed to be in order to express the concept.
Guess it didn't work.
I still call it a land mine. You didn't need to name a specific person, and you should know how it can be easily misconstrued.
Two wrongs don't make it right.
I still call it a land mine. You didn't need to name a specific person, and you should know how it can be easily misconstrued.
Two wrongs don't make it right.
I suppose.
Now we can continue to wait for him to back up his accusation. Guess we will be waiting a while.
MS Office did not put Wang out of business, not even out of the word processing business by itself. MS Office was not competing against Wang, it was competing against Lotus, WordPerfect, Quattro, etc., all of which were priced competitively. Admittedly, some of these players were late to the Windows game (although, this is at least partly because MS made it difficult for them to not be late) but it is also the case that MS included undocumented APIs in Windows exclusively for the use of Office products. There was no level playing field. MS leveraged its control of the OS into control of the office productivity software market.
Was this a massive win for users? I don't think so. It's resulted in the complete elimination of competition in this software category (sorry, but, OpenOffice is not offering real competition at this time), and users are paying for it in price, usability, and bloated inefficient software.
I've never liked Word on either the PC or Mac. And I'd use iWork on the Mac if Apple gave me the simple option to save in .doc or .docx - which I need to work on the files on PC's and share them with the 99% of the non-iWork using world - as the default save instead of having to do a dance involving going to the Finder to delete duplicate files.
(Just what the world needed - more proprietary formats for word processing and spreadsheet files)
But my Word processor of choice is still WordPerfect because of the total control provided by its reveal codes function (and it will save in .doc/x) - and the only reason my next Mac will be outfitted with Windows and virtualization software.
It's good to see I'm not the only one who remembers MS's tactics during the DOS/Windows switch when it promised ISV's a) continuing DOS development and b) promised the world it had set up a "firewall" between its OS and Applications groups so that all ISV's would have the same access to API's at the same time MS Office programmers got it.
So here's a history lesson for y'all:
The PC trade press (at that time primarily InfoWorld and PC Week) openly scoffed at the assertion. Meanwhile WordPerfect, #1 in word processing at the time, took MS at its word and invested huge resources in grafting its own mostly graphical UI to develop the interesting but doomed WP 6.0 for DOS - which left relatively few resources available for building a true Windows version.
By the time the trusting folks in Utah who bought into MS's gospel of "co-opetition" grasped they'd been snoggered and turned all their efforts to Win development (which was their bad in retrospect), MS Word for Win was by default grabbing huge gains in market share, and WP for Win was nowhere to be seen month after month after year - and WP was complaining loudly that MS kept shifting the Win API's every time their beta was stable.
And the line from one of those two publications I'll never forget (I think it was PC Week) was that the motto in the Windows API group was "the coding's not done until WordPerfect won't run." While oddly, the "firewalled off" Word coding group had no trouble keeping up with the changes.
When WP for Win was finally released, they launched a massive ad campaign showing fleets of semi trucks delivering the product to the pent-up masses, but it still had issues for some time and the damage had been done.
And when Novell's Ray Noorda - also in UT's "Salt Valley" - and also being "co-opteted" into irrelevance launched an ego-driven, ill-conceived and way too late effort to compete from the Server thru OS thru the Office level by picking up the corpses of DR-DOS, WordPerfect (and the product which became GroupWise), Borland's Quattro Pro and the Paradox database - all with separate code bases, and dBase faltered, the PC OS and Office and Server and Messaging landscape we see today took shape.
Corel, battered by Adobe, picked up WordPerfect Office where it survives as a small share company, while Novell's remaining chips are in the Linux market. Sun, while Java and Javascript survive, was never really a PC player, and is now becoming a division of Oracle, which was always primarily an enterprise-focused company. Netscape's assets ended up languishing inside of AOL, but also spawned (unless I'm mistaken) the true succcess story of OpenSource, Mozilla and FireFox.
The main PC software survivor of that time, outside of smallish Quicken (which I believe was only saved by the Justice Dept keeping MS from gobbling it up), chastened and restructured IBM, no longer in the "IBM PC" biz, nor several others it used to compete in, vibrantly resurgent Apple and MS itself - turned out to be iconoclastic Adobe, which fought off MS's attempts to horn in on image editing, and somehow turned PDF and Flash into (flawed) standards.
Leaving the present and future stage filled with the cloud and iDevice players. Where MS is less dominant, a more conservative competitor after its collisions with the US gov't and the EU, but not out of it. And you all know the others up to now - with Apple, Google and MS the media focus.
But paradigm shifts occur constantly in the tech world, and each opens new opportunities for disruptive tech to emerge. So it'll always be a riveting story. Even if I still miss WP being the standard for my main axe.
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.
And again, tell me how its possible to do this. AFAIK you can't do it. That is 'replace'. To put one thing in place of another. It can't be done.
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.
Not on point.
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".
Depends on how you characterise the use of VOIP. It might use VOIP in the cloud but there's nothing to suggest it does to device. In fact, you can use the service to a POTS. What does that say about the use of VOIP?
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.
And you've hit the nail on the head.
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?
Again, not surprising, no. The point is I am asking you to read between the lines. You've already acknowledged spin, but think carefully about what they're not saying and also how they've couched what they did say.
And again, tell me how its possible to do this. AFAIK you can't do it. That is 'replace'. To put one thing in place of another. It can't be done.
Are we still arguing about the meaning of the word 'replace'? The word has enough latitude in meaning that Apple's use of it is almost certainly correct while the precise meaning intended may remain uncertain to us. If anyone's argument hinges on the precise meaning of 'replace' intended, it's probably not a very strong argument to begin with.
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
You can test to see if the iPhone app uses VOIP protocols using a sniffer.
GV works on Google's side via VOIP. That's a given. But the app on the iPhone doesn't have to because GV is built to accomodate any kind of phone via ringbacks.
AT&T can't object to folks using VOIP to call iPhones...and they don't care anyways. It still costs minutes.
And again, tell me how its possible to do this. AFAIK you can't do it. That is 'replace'. To put one thing in place of another. It can't be done.
Right. Tell me that my GV number doesn't replace my iPhone number. If it didn't then the entire point of using GV is lost (call one number, I get it everywhere).
If I replace my iPhone number (no one ever calls) with another then pray tell how I have not replaced ALL of the iPhone telephony functionality with GV? It's effectively a 3G iPod Touch that runs the GV app for telephony functions.
Not on point.
Entirely on point as to how GV harms Apple.
Depends on how you characterise the use of VOIP. It might use VOIP in the cloud but there's nothing to suggest it does to device. In fact, you can use the service to a POTS. What does that say about the use of VOIP?
Google uses VOIP to get calls and route them to all of your phones. It does NOT need to use them on the iPhone app. I've said so in this thread.
Someone calls your GV number...which is a VOIP number that connects to some Google server, which initiates call forwarding to all of your other numbers.
When you call GV, it uses VOIP to ringback and bridge the call between you and who you wanted to call.
Again, not surprising, no. The point is I am asking you to read between the lines. You've already acknowledged spin, but think carefully about what they're not saying and also how they've couched what they did say.
It isn't in any hidden message and the come out and say it. Apple doesn't want Google taking the iPhone telephony experience away from the iPhone.
Why is that so hard to believe? Because folks don't want to accept that the GV number is intended to replace all of your other numbers? Because there must be some hidden agenda on Apple's part because you don't get that if your iPhone number gets replaced THEN ALL THE NATIVE IPHONE PHONE FUNCTIONS ALSO GET REPLACED? Even if they physically remain on the device?
That's real stupid.
There is talk of GV developing a full VoIP app/service, but I have only heard of that for the android so far. You cannot yet, for example, make a call from your PC/Mac and talk on the PC/Mac. You can initiate it on your PC/Mac and have it ring both your phone and the person you are calling, but those phones can be landlines or cellphones or voip lines.
Geez, this won't be hard for Google given that GTalk voice uses Jingle uses RTP to transmit voice. Heck you can connect GTalk to Asterisk if you want and it's not like Google doesn't have the entire GV infrastructure to use for gateways.
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?
The reason that Verizon doesn't want Apple is because Apple would reduce Verizon to providing bandwidth rather than value added services. It reduces Verizon to being a pipe. So Verizon said no.
The reason that Apple doesn't want GV is because GV would reduce the iPhone to being a 3G enabled device that runs the GV app. It significantly diminishes the iPhone's competitive advantage against other smart phone competitors. So Apple said no.
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, what you're saying is that Apple MUST support a competitor in destroying the value in its products and the economic harm does not provide justification for saying "You own Android, do it there and not on our platform".
This isn't much different that Palm hijacking iTunes.
So again, by your reasoning, Apple was right to do it, 1) because Google is a competitor and 2) because the can.
Only if you ignore that GV is attempting to subvert the iPhone experience and commoditizing the platform.
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?
Because they would then still control the user experience of the phone. GV would be part of the back end solution.
Does Apple want to replicate all that GV functionality in MobileMe? Not likely. So at that point it doesn't matter. What the don't want is the same telephony experience on the iPhone, Palm Pre, Blackberry, WinMo and Android phones.
They want to continue to have a competitive advantage in user experience because they are good at that and the other companies suck. Reducing everyone to the GV common demoninator means mediocrity across the board and the base GV functionality (call one number, ring everywhere) is too compelling to ignore.
So for the short term the smart response is to stick into app store limbo and figure out what the right course of action is.
Right. Tell me that my GV number doesn't replace my iPhone number. If it didn't then the entire point of using GV is lost (call one number, I get it everywhere).
That wasn't the question being asked. Tell me how Google view replaces built in telephony. You can't, because it doesn't, and it can't.
If I replace my iPhone number (no one ever calls) with another then pray tell how I have not replaced ALL of the iPhone telephony functionality with GV? It's effectively a 3G iPod Touch that runs the GV app for telephony functions.
Well, for a start, you haven't replaced your iPhone number, have you? It's still there and it still can be used. Just because you may have chosen to put it to one side does not mean it has been replaced. If you gave out that number, would you be shocked if your phone rang? I guess you would be if you had 'replaced' it.
Apple doesn't want Google taking the iPhone telephony experience away from the iPhone.
Why is that so hard to believe? Because folks don't want to accept that the GV number is intended to replace all of your other numbers?
Don't you think that's a choice people should be able to make? It is completely asinine to suggest that a user of GV would expect to leverage all the functionality of the mobile device. Even so, they can if they wish, simply by using the iPhones built in telephony which can never be replaced.
Because there must be some hidden agenda on Apple's part because you don't get that if your iPhone number gets replaced THEN ALL THE NATIVE IPHONE PHONE FUNCTIONS ALSO GET REPLACED? Even if they physically remain on the device?
So when the call is routed to your iPhone, does this GV app handle the call? It doesn't, because it can't. And when anyone calls your phone the GV app handles it how? It doesn't, because it can't. And when someone leaves a voice message on your iPhone number does that somehow magically never get to VVM? No, it doesn't.
That's real stupid.
No, what's real stupid is a response from apple like GV "prevent[s] voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple?s Visual Voicemail" when the far more accurate description is that the user chooses to bypass it (again, a choice on the part of the user). In fact, that's not even inaccurate, that's a lie. The voicemail was never intended to be stored on the phone in the first place. A lie as in, the person making the assertion knows the assertion is false. In no way can VVM be considered disabled should one choose not to use it.
Anyways, I choose to end there. One won't convince the other so there's no point getting further worked up.
Have a good day.
The reason that Verizon doesn't want Apple is because Apple would reduce Verizon to providing bandwidth rather than value added services. It reduces Verizon to being a pipe. So Verizon said no.
The reason that Apple doesn't want GV is because GV would reduce the iPhone to being a 3G enabled device that runs the GV app. It significantly diminishes the iPhone's competitive advantage against other smart phone competitors. So Apple said no.
You are probably quite right, that this is what Apple felt and as the reason for their decision/lack of, on the app. But, what you see as diminishing their competitive advantage, I see it as only offering an alternative. If the iPhone interfaces are all left intact, and they are an advantage, then the advantage still exists.
There is no one at Google with a gun to your head saying that if you use their GV service you must use it for all of your phones. You believe that not doing so eliminates the benefit of even using GV. You said you use GV or have an account. Have you eliminated all of your other phone numbers?
So, what you're saying is that Apple MUST support a competitor in destroying the value in its products and the economic harm does not provide justification for saying "You own Android, do it there and not on our platform".
This isn't much different that Palm hijacking iTunes.
No I am saying that Google being a competitor for device space is not justification for denying the app (or more accurately, for not approving it). Just as it was wrong for MS to use their platform of their OSes to act against competitors in the application space (whether their monopoly made it illegal or not).
Only if you ignore that GV is attempting to subvert the iPhone experience and commoditizing the platform.
or perhaps trying to offer alternatives to users.
Because they would then still control the user experience of the phone. GV would be part of the back end solution.
Yet that back end would still be google...for everything including features like VVM. Apple mentioned the storage of VM as a specific issue they have. If GV, the service, handles all calls, regardless of iPhone, Android, your home phone, by using a single phone number, then it that would have to include VM. This is what I meant by the back end still being google controlled and why I don't think Apple would go for it with their current concerns.
Edit for addition: though it is true that the iPhone VVM could be changed to pull VVM from the GV servers, likely very easily, this still leave Apple out of the loop in where the messages are stored...maybe they wouldn't actually care. Certainly their carrier partners that invested in Apple VVM servers might not like it. The more I think about it, this probably would be a workable idea, but it would cost Apple a lot of good will with the carriers to implement GV services on the iPhone themselves.
Does Apple want to replicate all that GV functionality in MobileMe? Not likely. So at that point it doesn't matter. What the don't want is the same telephony experience on the iPhone, Palm Pre, Blackberry, WinMo and Android phones.
They want to continue to have a competitive advantage in user experience because they are good at that and the other companies suck. Reducing everyone to the GV common demoninator means mediocrity across the board and the base GV functionality (call one number, ring everywhere) is too compelling to ignore.
Again, all likely accurate in describing Apple's concerns. But, as you say, Apple is good at the interface and that is why users love their products and is one of Apple's advantages. If google's GV app also sucked in the interface, then users would not use it. So again, the threat is that Google might make it too compelling, too good or too convenient?
So for the short term the smart response is to stick into app store limbo and figure out what the right course of action is.
Careful, using the word limbo to describe the situation is going to leave you with some explaining to do.
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.
Figured I would respond to this again separately. As I said in another thread, this idea is growing on me. Actually, I just read posting at theiphoneblog that had a similar suggestion.
There was another that had took it a step further. Perhaps the gigantic data centre Apple is building might be intended to provide GV like services. Again, this would piss off a lot of their carrier partners, but damn it sounds like a good idea. I'd love to see Apple do this and also allow GV on the iPhone. Let them compete on merit of the services, interface, etc. Maybe this is why Apple has not approved the GV app nor rejected the app. Perhaps the response they are pondering is their own competing service. Though it would seem unreasonable to try to delay until their data centre is done (has it even broken ground yet?)
I love fair competition between great companies, so I would really like to see this.
Given Jobs description of his feelings about carriers in the past, it wouldn't be unexpected for him to use the massive popularity of the iPhone to do an end run around the carriers now (or soon). I for one would not be sad to see Apple stick it to the carriers and cut them out of the picture.
mmm, assuming these guys work 8 hours a day and 5 days per week, that means on average they have to review more than 10 apps every hour - or one every 6 minutes!
Google Voice offers MUCH more unique features than the iPhone/ATT telephone and there may be duplicate functions in some areas but Google Voice is a lot more versatile phone service than what ATT provides. I my opinion neither of those objections justify the rejection. Also, whether I am comfortable keeping my messages and address book on Google's service or not is - again - my problem.
John B.: still waiting for you to provide any proof of your inane assertions that GV sends our contacts to google without ever asking for user confirmation or even informing the user. Not unexpected of you though, is it?