For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways.
Oh this is total BS. Yes, I know that Apple has enforced this rule about duplication of features, but honestly, this clearly isn't duplication of features, since the iPhone doesn't have voicemail transcription, doesn't have free SMS, doesn't connect to Google Voice so you can use one number to ring all your phones, doesn't have cheap international calling standard. So I say the FCC should just force them to approve it... and let the consumers decide whether they want to use it or not. And if consumers were so concerned with Google handling their data, they wouldn't use the service in the first place. This is not a reason to keep reviewing it... it's like saying they're trying to protect people from themselves from signing up with Google, who seems to be legitimate, but also does identity theft?!?
I don't believe Apple really wants innovation like this to stop... I still think there's an impetus to have good relations with AT&T in general so they can negotiate a better subsidy from them . Sigh, another day where a company screws the consumers.. or tries to, anyway. And I'm pretty sure that contact sync was exactly that, a contact sync to Google's servers. What wrong with that? Doesn't the iPhone already do that everytime you sync it in iTunes?
I guess the only resolution is when Apple provides this feature on their own... that'll be the day when birds start walking..
If Teh Google really tried to submit an app that replaced key parts of the iPhone interface with their own, then that app deserved to get rejected.
Eff Google and their arrogance.
And eff Google for stirring up such a sh*t storm against Apple and AT&T in the blogosphere while not copping to the fact that it was they who stepped over the line.
It sounds like the Google Voice app was replacing the Apple Interface all together and sending the user's personal information to a Google Server. The User was not given a choice in what Google Voice was doing.
??
And yet the Google disciples can somehow completely gloss over that little fact. Amazing...
If Teh Google really tried to submit an app that replaced key parts of the iPhone interface with their own, then that app deserved to get rejected.
Eff Google and their arrogance.
And eff Google for stirring up such a sh*t storm against Apple and AT&T in the blogosphere while not copping to the fact that it was they who stepped over the line.
"Do no evil"? My arse.
It replaced nothing. That word was intentionally selected to invoke a response from the simple minded, to make it sound as though iPhone users were actually losing something and something else was taking it's place, i.e. replaced. The entire iphone phone.app is left in place, therefore nothing is replaced. An alternative is provided.
What sort of retard would get confused between the google app that they had to download and the built-in in phone.app? Both would co-exist. Does Apple really think their users are so simple minded? I would normally say no, but the fact that some people bought into the 'replaced' wording, shows that perhaps they should,
How was google being arrogant by providing a service and app that there is huge demand for? How arrogant. Whereas Apple decided you are a twit that would be confused by another dialer, but you don't find that arrogant of them?
As far as having to cop to stepping over the line. 1) they did not. 2) what were they supposed to 'cop to? "uhh, sorry guys, our Google Voice Phone suite app would actually have some phone features...just in case you were too stupid to figure this out on your own"...I think the respect their users too much to expect they would have to spell it out in simple, small words.
It sounds like the Google Voice app was replacing the Apple Interface all together and sending the user's personal information to a Google Server. The User was not given a choice in what Google Voice was doing.
??
To replace means to substitute one for another. This is not the case. The entire iPhone phone interface would still be available. The GV app would simply add an alternative. There are already multiple dialers for the iPhone, so this is a cop out.
The fact that user data would uploaded is a possible concern. Note that in Apple's very carefully chosen wording, they never claim that the user contacts would be sent to Google without explicit user consent. This is important to note, because if it was the case, Apple would have noted it, but they didn't. At best Apple says they are concerned they did not receive assurance from Google that user contacts information would be used appropriately. This is an intentionally vague cop out.
Bullcrap. There are other apps that let you text for free, I use AIM. Way to jump to a false conclusion.
now you are thinking sort of straight...you are right there are apps that let you sent text for free...(not that AIM is SMS), but there are apps that let you send SMS for free.
Additionally, there are apps that provide an dialer. Apps that let you call out. Apps that let you use alternative long distance providers or calling cards. Basically, they are apps that do everything the google voice app would do, but not do everything together. i.e provide an alternative, or 'replacement' for the phone.app that is built in.
So, you were against apps providing 'replacement's for built in functions...yet you claim to use some...double standards time?
EDIT: also, he wasn't jumping to conclusions. The Apple letter mentions SMS as one of the features that concerned them. So you know, way to read.
It sounds like the Google Voice app was replacing the Apple Interface all together and sending the user's personal information to a Google Server. The User was not given a choice in what Google Voice was doing.
And yet the Google disciples can somehow completely gloss over that little fact. Amazing...
What's to gloss over? It wasn't stated in the letter. It was a hypothesis by Quadra 610. Seriously, if you are going to get so righteously indignant, you should read the letter first.
Remember that AT&T pays(subsidizes) for your iPhone. SO they need to get their money back. You cannot get the iPhone at 75% discount and expect to make free calls on it. May be someday when the full price is paid by the users, then we all can get free VOIP like Google Voice on the iPhone.
AT&T needs to recoup their investment plus profit on each iPhone they activated. Investors of AT&T need to see their investment increase in value, just like Google and Apple investors. This issue is not about control of the iPhone, it is about AT&T recouping Billions of Dollars it has paid for you and me to get our iPhone at a very low price, far lower than the MSRP.
So no Google Voice or any other VOIP on the iPhone, for now.
You're equating Google Voice with VOIP? Have you not been paying attention to the past several threads on this? You make a call with GV, you use minutes just like you would otherwise.
Reading over the Apple letter has not changed my opinion as to why the App was denyed (ok, not denied, but put on hold). It seems it was not AT&T but entirely Apple's decision. They mention 3 key reasons:
1) Replacing the iPhone?s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls text messaging and voicemail
2) No guarantee from google that user data would be used appropriately.
#2 hold no water. We have no idea what Apple's standards for 'approprate use are nor if they provided these to Google. Also, note that the letter does not say the user contacts info would be sent to Google without user consent, which they certainly would have mentioned. So, it would seem , by this omission, that the sending of contacts would be optional.
While I believe that #1 was their real reason, I don't think it is a valid reason. Only part of this reason even makes sense. 'Replacing' the Apple UI for telephone calls etc? Lots of other apps do this, so why crack down on Google on this? Partly, because GV app would be the first app that would centralize all of these functions into a single UI, something not even the iPhone itself does. The main reason, I think, is the VVM feature that GV provides. It is more feature rich than Apples and Push notifications would make it a fully functional alternative to using the iPhone VVM....which Apple makes a recurring pile of money on. Every carrier pays Apple for VVM servers and pays them a sub fee for each user that subscribes to the service. On many carriers, other than AT&T, VVM is an option and so can be dropped. Lots of users would probably switch to a more feature rich, free alternative in a second...and they should be allowed to. People have used alternative voice mail systems for years, no reason they should be prevented from doing so now.
Question 3.... What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
...There is a provision in Apple?s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T?s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T?s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T?s customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T?s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone.
The issue for anyone who uses an iPhone outside of the US is, why is Apple instructing developers to limit functionality based on only AT&T's TOS.
The iPhone is available in many countries outside the US. For example, I am in Canada and I have an iPhone from Rogers. The Terms of Service for my iPhone are different than those of AT&T customers (link below).
Why then am I being forced into limited functionality based on a Terms of Service contract that I never signed? Why should AT&T's terms of service be the lowest common denominator?
Apple needs to pay attention to the fact that the iPhone is an international product and the Apps on the App Store are available to more than just AT&T customers.
Ooooh, this continues to infuriate me. Google Voice is NOT a VoIP service! It is a phone call forwarding service. Calls on both sides are connected over the phone lines. Sure, the call travels over the internet in between the two ends, but Google Voice relies 100% on actual phone service to connect the calls on both ends!!
which is fine and dandy and deals with any objections ATT might have.
HOWEVER, it does use a different interface than the iphone one and that is an issue for Apple. One point that can only be addressed by knowing the exact agreement when a developer signs up if if the rules pointedly state that such an app is a no-no is included. In which case Google should have expected a rejection. the implication is that yes such a line item is in the rules, but since we can't see the rules without signing up, we can't say with certainty
which is fine and dandy and deals with any objections ATT might have.
HOWEVER, it does use a different interface than the iphone one and that is an issue for Apple. One point that can only be addressed by knowing the exact agreement when a developer signs up if if the rules pointedly state that such an app is a no-no is included. In which case Google should have expected a rejection. the implication is that yes such a line item is in the rules, but since we can't see the rules without signing up, we can't say with certainty
Except that there are published apps that provide a different interface for these dame functions. Why then should Google have expected a rejection?
This is just the beginning of a long overdue fight between what is defined as voice and what is defined as data. Apple may have a few points, but as many posts here show, they don't really hold water. The issue here is revenue. Whether its made by selling a phone and an application or whether it's made by getting money every time you use your iPhone over a carrier. We don't really know how much Apple gets from AT&T and how it's broken down between each function of the phone application. I speculate that Apple makes a decent amount from each phone call, sms or vm that is used on an iPhone. They are not going to give that up.
If Google were to copy the functionality of the phone app, there would be a problem for Apple. The problem would be that now you can recreate a similar experience on any device that uses GV. This would put the iPhone and Apple in a situation where the experience could be duplicated easily, and create cheaper devices, (Android). Apple doesn't want to give Google access to their iPhone users in this way by risking the users migrating to another smartphone platform. Think windows 95. Apple didn't think Microsoft was a threat then, and this was long after Jobs was gone.
Do you think that Apple isn't aware of Google's plan to usurp Microsoft?
This will end up going to court or in front of Congress (ugh!).
If Teh Google really tried to submit an app that replaced key parts of the iPhone interface with their own, then that app deserved to get rejected.
Eff Google and their arrogance.
And eff Google for stirring up such a sh*t storm against Apple and AT&T in the blogosphere while not copping to the fact that it was they who stepped over the line.
"Do no evil"? My arse.
Very good forum grammer.
If you haven't realized by now Google and Apple are competitors. They are out to make a profit just like Apple.
If Apple doesn't like that GoogleVoice puts their OS to Shame and has additional features that better the iPhone then Apple is Anti Competitive and will go down during this investigation.
I have an iPhone but their answers were complete BS considering what has already been approved.
Google used this opportunity to not only make Apple Look Bad but Also AT&T.
Steve, wake up from your coma. Get Phil out of answering emails to public shame (only when they hit the press) and start addressing the OS issues and hire more than 40 people to check apps. You charge $9,000 for a netbook (yes I know they don't have one and it certainly will only cost you your first Born and be tied to an AT&T subsidized contract for 2 years). I think you can afford it.
Well I'll have to agree with Tulkas on some of these points, but I think the AT&T TOS seems to play a major role here, and Google's user of user data.
I do agree with Tulkas about GV not replacing Apple's interface. That does seem like dodging the issue, though not very deftly.
I'm still conflicted about how I should feel about all this. I'm quite satisfied with the way things are at the moment.
Put it this way. Apple clearly states they would have no problem with Google doing the GV app as a web app. This would provide pretty much 100% of the functionality of the GV app running natively. So, if they have a problem with the native app replacing features this way, why no problem with a web app doing the same thing? Why indeed.
A web app would not have Push Notifications. This cuts down on how complete a replacement users would find it for the built in VVM and SMS features. These features would be fully available in a web app, but if you aren't notified immediately of a new message, users won't stop using the built in apps for VVM and SMS.
So, Apple has no problem with google providing a 'replacement UI' for all of these features...or anyone else, as there are already other apps doing them one at a time. The problem is how well Google might do it. They might do it so well that mass number of users (outside of the US) would drop their VVM and SMS options. Dropping VVM would cost Apple money.
If Google were to offer to cripple their app to not use the APN API, I would wager that Apple would allow the app immediately. But, if Google were to offer completely gut the app and make it just an App that received Push Noticications from GV but had to launch the GV web app to access any functions, Apple would deny that app...because it would turn even the web app into a potential replacement for the built in apps.
RIM 'allows' GV app on the BlackBerries. RIM has no VVM (yet) and so nothing to lose if users use GV fulltime...
Comments
For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways.
Oh this is total BS. Yes, I know that Apple has enforced this rule about duplication of features, but honestly, this clearly isn't duplication of features, since the iPhone doesn't have voicemail transcription, doesn't have free SMS, doesn't connect to Google Voice so you can use one number to ring all your phones, doesn't have cheap international calling standard. So I say the FCC should just force them to approve it... and let the consumers decide whether they want to use it or not. And if consumers were so concerned with Google handling their data, they wouldn't use the service in the first place. This is not a reason to keep reviewing it... it's like saying they're trying to protect people from themselves from signing up with Google, who seems to be legitimate, but also does identity theft?!?
I don't believe Apple really wants innovation like this to stop... I still think there's an impetus to have good relations with AT&T in general so they can negotiate a better subsidy from them
I guess the only resolution is when Apple provides this feature on their own... that'll be the day when birds start walking..
Eff Google and their arrogance.
And eff Google for stirring up such a sh*t storm against Apple and AT&T in the blogosphere while not copping to the fact that it was they who stepped over the line.
"Do no evil"? My arse.
It sounds like the Google Voice app was replacing the Apple Interface all together and sending the user's personal information to a Google Server. The User was not given a choice in what Google Voice was doing.
??
And yet the Google disciples can somehow completely gloss over that little fact. Amazing...
If Teh Google really tried to submit an app that replaced key parts of the iPhone interface with their own, then that app deserved to get rejected.
Eff Google and their arrogance.
And eff Google for stirring up such a sh*t storm against Apple and AT&T in the blogosphere while not copping to the fact that it was they who stepped over the line.
"Do no evil"? My arse.
It replaced nothing. That word was intentionally selected to invoke a response from the simple minded, to make it sound as though iPhone users were actually losing something and something else was taking it's place, i.e. replaced. The entire iphone phone.app is left in place, therefore nothing is replaced. An alternative is provided.
What sort of retard would get confused between the google app that they had to download and the built-in in phone.app? Both would co-exist. Does Apple really think their users are so simple minded? I would normally say no, but the fact that some people bought into the 'replaced' wording, shows that perhaps they should,
How was google being arrogant by providing a service and app that there is huge demand for? How arrogant. Whereas Apple decided you are a twit that would be confused by another dialer, but you don't find that arrogant of them?
As far as having to cop to stepping over the line. 1) they did not. 2) what were they supposed to 'cop to? "uhh, sorry guys, our Google Voice Phone suite app would actually have some phone features...just in case you were too stupid to figure this out on your own"...I think the respect their users too much to expect they would have to spell it out in simple, small words.
wow free texting, gee lets block that
it's the free text messaging which threatens att cash and profit cow, att is all over this
wow free texting, gee lets block that
Bullcrap. There are other apps that let you text for free, I use AIM. Way to jump to a false conclusion.
It sounds like the Google Voice app was replacing the Apple Interface all together and sending the user's personal information to a Google Server. The User was not given a choice in what Google Voice was doing.
??
To replace means to substitute one for another. This is not the case. The entire iPhone phone interface would still be available. The GV app would simply add an alternative. There are already multiple dialers for the iPhone, so this is a cop out.
The fact that user data would uploaded is a possible concern. Note that in Apple's very carefully chosen wording, they never claim that the user contacts would be sent to Google without explicit user consent. This is important to note, because if it was the case, Apple would have noted it, but they didn't. At best Apple says they are concerned they did not receive assurance from Google that user contacts information would be used appropriately. This is an intentionally vague cop out.
Bullcrap. There are other apps that let you text for free, I use AIM. Way to jump to a false conclusion.
now you are thinking sort of straight...you are right there are apps that let you sent text for free...(not that AIM is SMS), but there are apps that let you send SMS for free.
Additionally, there are apps that provide an dialer. Apps that let you call out. Apps that let you use alternative long distance providers or calling cards. Basically, they are apps that do everything the google voice app would do, but not do everything together. i.e provide an alternative, or 'replacement' for the phone.app that is built in.
So, you were against apps providing 'replacement's for built in functions...yet you claim to use some...double standards time?
EDIT: also, he wasn't jumping to conclusions. The Apple letter mentions SMS as one of the features that concerned them. So you know, way to read.
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
It sounds like the Google Voice app was replacing the Apple Interface all together and sending the user's personal information to a Google Server. The User was not given a choice in what Google Voice was doing.
And yet the Google disciples can somehow completely gloss over that little fact. Amazing...
What's to gloss over? It wasn't stated in the letter. It was a hypothesis by Quadra 610. Seriously, if you are going to get so righteously indignant, you should read the letter first.
Remember that AT&T pays(subsidizes) for your iPhone. SO they need to get their money back. You cannot get the iPhone at 75% discount and expect to make free calls on it. May be someday when the full price is paid by the users, then we all can get free VOIP like Google Voice on the iPhone.
AT&T needs to recoup their investment plus profit on each iPhone they activated. Investors of AT&T need to see their investment increase in value, just like Google and Apple investors. This issue is not about control of the iPhone, it is about AT&T recouping Billions of Dollars it has paid for you and me to get our iPhone at a very low price, far lower than the MSRP.
So no Google Voice or any other VOIP on the iPhone, for now.
You're equating Google Voice with VOIP? Have you not been paying attention to the past several threads on this? You make a call with GV, you use minutes just like you would otherwise.
don't like it ???
Apple owes no one anything .
Go apple
1) Replacing the iPhone?s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls text messaging and voicemail
2) No guarantee from google that user data would be used appropriately.
#2 hold no water. We have no idea what Apple's standards for 'approprate use are nor if they provided these to Google. Also, note that the letter does not say the user contacts info would be sent to Google without user consent, which they certainly would have mentioned. So, it would seem , by this omission, that the sending of contacts would be optional.
While I believe that #1 was their real reason, I don't think it is a valid reason. Only part of this reason even makes sense. 'Replacing' the Apple UI for telephone calls etc? Lots of other apps do this, so why crack down on Google on this? Partly, because GV app would be the first app that would centralize all of these functions into a single UI, something not even the iPhone itself does. The main reason, I think, is the VVM feature that GV provides. It is more feature rich than Apples and Push notifications would make it a fully functional alternative to using the iPhone VVM....which Apple makes a recurring pile of money on. Every carrier pays Apple for VVM servers and pays them a sub fee for each user that subscribes to the service. On many carriers, other than AT&T, VVM is an option and so can be dropped. Lots of users would probably switch to a more feature rich, free alternative in a second...and they should be allowed to. People have used alternative voice mail systems for years, no reason they should be prevented from doing so now.
Apple owns the app store>> they can and shall reject any one for any reason .
don't like it ???
Apple owes no one anything .
Go apple
what a very thoughtful post.
Some people prefer to think and make decisions on their own.
Some people need to be told what to think, what to use, what to do. I have no respect for those people.
Question 3.... What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?
...There is a provision in Apple?s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T?s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T?s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T?s customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T?s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone.
The issue for anyone who uses an iPhone outside of the US is, why is Apple instructing developers to limit functionality based on only AT&T's TOS.
The iPhone is available in many countries outside the US. For example, I am in Canada and I have an iPhone from Rogers. The Terms of Service for my iPhone are different than those of AT&T customers (link below).
Why then am I being forced into limited functionality based on a Terms of Service contract that I never signed? Why should AT&T's terms of service be the lowest common denominator?
Apple needs to pay attention to the fact that the iPhone is an international product and the Apps on the App Store are available to more than just AT&T customers.
Rogers Terms of Service: http://www.rogers.com/cms/pdf/en/TOS_Eng.pdf
Ooooh, this continues to infuriate me. Google Voice is NOT a VoIP service! It is a phone call forwarding service. Calls on both sides are connected over the phone lines. Sure, the call travels over the internet in between the two ends, but Google Voice relies 100% on actual phone service to connect the calls on both ends!!
which is fine and dandy and deals with any objections ATT might have.
HOWEVER, it does use a different interface than the iphone one and that is an issue for Apple. One point that can only be addressed by knowing the exact agreement when a developer signs up if if the rules pointedly state that such an app is a no-no is included. In which case Google should have expected a rejection. the implication is that yes such a line item is in the rules, but since we can't see the rules without signing up, we can't say with certainty
which is fine and dandy and deals with any objections ATT might have.
HOWEVER, it does use a different interface than the iphone one and that is an issue for Apple. One point that can only be addressed by knowing the exact agreement when a developer signs up if if the rules pointedly state that such an app is a no-no is included. In which case Google should have expected a rejection. the implication is that yes such a line item is in the rules, but since we can't see the rules without signing up, we can't say with certainty
Except that there are published apps that provide a different interface for these dame functions. Why then should Google have expected a rejection?
I do agree with Tulkas about GV not replacing Apple's interface. That does seem like dodging the issue, though not very deftly.
I'm still conflicted about how I should feel about all this. I'm quite satisfied with the way things are at the moment.
If Google were to copy the functionality of the phone app, there would be a problem for Apple. The problem would be that now you can recreate a similar experience on any device that uses GV. This would put the iPhone and Apple in a situation where the experience could be duplicated easily, and create cheaper devices, (Android). Apple doesn't want to give Google access to their iPhone users in this way by risking the users migrating to another smartphone platform. Think windows 95. Apple didn't think Microsoft was a threat then, and this was long after Jobs was gone.
Do you think that Apple isn't aware of Google's plan to usurp Microsoft?
This will end up going to court or in front of Congress (ugh!).
This is far from over.
If Teh Google really tried to submit an app that replaced key parts of the iPhone interface with their own, then that app deserved to get rejected.
Eff Google and their arrogance.
And eff Google for stirring up such a sh*t storm against Apple and AT&T in the blogosphere while not copping to the fact that it was they who stepped over the line.
"Do no evil"? My arse.
Very good forum grammer.
If you haven't realized by now Google and Apple are competitors. They are out to make a profit just like Apple.
If Apple doesn't like that GoogleVoice puts their OS to Shame and has additional features that better the iPhone then Apple is Anti Competitive and will go down during this investigation.
I have an iPhone but their answers were complete BS considering what has already been approved.
Google used this opportunity to not only make Apple Look Bad but Also AT&T.
Steve, wake up from your coma. Get Phil out of answering emails to public shame (only when they hit the press) and start addressing the OS issues and hire more than 40 people to check apps. You charge $9,000 for a netbook (yes I know they don't have one and it certainly will only cost you your first Born and be tied to an AT&T subsidized contract for 2 years). I think you can afford it.
Well I'll have to agree with Tulkas on some of these points, but I think the AT&T TOS seems to play a major role here, and Google's user of user data.
I do agree with Tulkas about GV not replacing Apple's interface. That does seem like dodging the issue, though not very deftly.
I'm still conflicted about how I should feel about all this. I'm quite satisfied with the way things are at the moment.
Put it this way. Apple clearly states they would have no problem with Google doing the GV app as a web app. This would provide pretty much 100% of the functionality of the GV app running natively. So, if they have a problem with the native app replacing features this way, why no problem with a web app doing the same thing? Why indeed.
A web app would not have Push Notifications. This cuts down on how complete a replacement users would find it for the built in VVM and SMS features. These features would be fully available in a web app, but if you aren't notified immediately of a new message, users won't stop using the built in apps for VVM and SMS.
So, Apple has no problem with google providing a 'replacement UI' for all of these features...or anyone else, as there are already other apps doing them one at a time. The problem is how well Google might do it. They might do it so well that mass number of users (outside of the US) would drop their VVM and SMS options. Dropping VVM would cost Apple money.
If Google were to offer to cripple their app to not use the APN API, I would wager that Apple would allow the app immediately. But, if Google were to offer completely gut the app and make it just an App that received Push Noticications from GV but had to launch the GV web app to access any functions, Apple would deny that app...because it would turn even the web app into a potential replacement for the built in apps.
RIM 'allows' GV app on the BlackBerries. RIM has no VVM (yet) and so nothing to lose if users use GV fulltime...