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...
Google specifically said in their New York Times article that the Web Version wouldn't allow all of the features to be used to their fullest potential.
Edit.
You have to click on "Letter" in the last paragraph of the PDF letter to the FCC for the full reply from Google. Trust me, it's worth the time to read it.
if apple states that ATT's TOS has something to do with the rejection, how had ATT "no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store.."
Google specifically said in their New York Times article that the Web Version wouldn't allow all of the features to be used to their fullest potential.
Maybe. Do you have a link for that? I don't think google had formaly commented publically on their plans for a web app for the iPhone. The only reference I recall was Pogue saying he had spoken to a product manager at google that said it would be fully featured. I dug up the quote
Quote:
"Google says it is readying a replacement for the Google Voice app that will offer exactly the same features as the rejected app—except that it will take the form of a specialized, iPhone-shaped Web page. For all intents and purposes, it will behave exactly the same as the app would have; you can even install it as an icon on your Home screen"
I would tend to agree. For all intents and purposes, most of the main features could be replicated through a web app. But, as I said, without Push, it would fail to become a fulltime replacement for most users. and yeah, it could do everything the native app wold do and without Push, then I would say it is not doing it to its full potential.
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.
Incorrect. GV currently has an iPhone "optimized" web interface. Sucks compared to the best native iPhone app, Sean Kovacs GV Mobile. And we're pretty safe in assuming that the Google GV app would have been way ahead of GV Mobile, no offense to Sean.
... because the app has not actually been rejected, so no decision has been made by apple, therefore there was no 'involvement in a decision', but possibly in a non-decision.
i'm sorry. i should have put my 'corporate doublespeak' ears on first...
Maybe. Do you have a link for that? I don't think google had formaly commented publically on their plans for a web app for the iPhone. The only reference I recall was Pogue saying he had spoken to a product manager at google that said it would be fully featured. I dug up the quote
I would tend to agree. For all intents and purposes, most of the main features could be replicated through a web app. But, as I said, without Push, it would fail to become a fulltime replacement for most users. and yeah, it could do everything the native app wold do and without Push, then I would say it is not doing it to its full potential.
... because the app has not actually been rejected, so no decision has been made by apple, therefore there was no 'involvement in a decision', but possibly in a non-decision.
i'm sorry. i should have put my 'corporate doublespeak' ears on first...
And yet the Google disciples can somehow completely gloss over that little fact. Amazing...
Really? Amazing? How about we bought GV Mobile knowing that it worked and we don't care how it works but it works. There is nothing to gloss over. Apple has crossed a line.
I love how Apple is still unsure whether or not it is a VOIP service. From the company that brought you OSX, they are still studying whether or not GV is VOIP. Give me a break...
Incorrect. GV currently has an iPhone "optimized" web interface. Sucks compared to the best native iPhone app, Sean Kovacs GV Mobile. And we're pretty safe in assuming that the Google GV app would have been way ahead of GV Mobile, no offense to Sean.
Edit:I'll just say a mobile optimized site is not the same as an iphone web app.
... The [Google Voice] application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone?s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone?s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. 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. ...
I will start off by saying that I'm not a fan of Google, am a fan but not a fanboy of Apple, and am somewhat neutral on AT&T, at least in comparison to other wireless carriers. (I think most of the responses from those who actually seemed to have read the article and Q&A, and even those who didn't, break down pretty much along the lines of how one feels about the respective companies, so, no point in leaving any doubt.) I also have zero interest in using GV or most other Google services.
First, as to the part about, "that [the iPhone user?s entire Contacts database] will only be used in appropriate ways," I think the only appropriate way this could be used by Google is, not at all. However, I doubt very much that Google does not make very intensive use of all the contact, and other, information you give them, wittingly or unwittngly. If Apple is truly sincere in what they say here, then, I applaud them.
(Of course, the cynic in me wonders if this isn't just smoke, although, the idealist hopes not.)
As for the rest, I'm somewhat surprised to find that AT&T was not at least in part behind the rejection/holdup of GV.
I'm also sympathetic to Apple's position here. (And, since I have no interest in GV, clearly, I'm not upset by not being able to use it. Replace, duplicate, mimic, call it what you will, it seems pretty clear that the purpose of the GV app is to take over the telephony/messaging/contacts user experience, effectively turning the iPhone into a tool to serve Googles ends, at least for those users who would use GV. I can clearly see why Apple would view this as a competitor's Trojan Horse.
And, while perhaps not for posters on this forum, if the GV app works according to Apple's rather summary description, I do think it could potentially cause a not insignificant amount of user confusion. For example, if a relatively non tech savvy person installs the GV app and starts intermixing use of it with the built in apps of the same functionality, they might well find it confusing that they have voicemails in two different places, receive text messages in two different apps, and so on.
Obviously, this also creates a potential support problem for Apple. I mean, it's not like you can call Google for support, can you? (Well, honestly, I don't know, but I'm not aware of any Google service that they offer phone support for.) And would some users not even distinguish which app they are trying to call or message from, or would they not just assume it's "an iPhone problem" and call Apple, perhaps neglecting to mention that they aren't using the built-in apps for these things?
Still, I think the biggest problem Apple has with GV is, again, based on the summary description, its obvious intent of taking over the iPhone user experience for Google's benefit.
I know a lot of people think Google is an absolutely wonderful, benign company. I on the other hand think they tossed the "do no evil" plan pretty much before they wrote it down. To me at least, it's clear that they intend to control the technology world, and as much as they can reach beyond it, as much as they can, and on a scope that Microsoft never even imagined.
So, if Apple throws a roadblock in their way, in the interests of self preservation, that slows them down a bit, I have no problem with that.
makes you wonder how many lawyers were involved between the three companies to write these letters...
of course the really interesting parts in the google letter are redacted.
My take on the interesting part is how Apple & AT&T are both pointing the finger at each other and nobody is pointing the finger at Google (because they did no wrong).
So, then they never do actually say the web app "wouldn't allow all of the features to be used to their fullest potential", specifically or oetherwise. Instead, they correctly state that a native app would provide some advantages. Their specific example is access to the Phone address book. This is not a core function of the Google Voice Service.
In terms of the feature offered by the Google Voice Service, a web app could provide full functionality. But it would not have access to advantages provided by the OS..like access to the address book...or Push.
Pretty much what I said, though I did not specifically mention the address book. That it would lose Push is much more important than the address book. Though the address book would be a nice freebie from the OS too.
I will start off by saying that I'm not a fan of Google, am a fan but not a fanboy of Apple, and am somewhat neutral on AT&T, at least in comparison to other wireless carriers. (I think most of the responses from those who actually seemed to have read the article and Q&A, and even those who didn't, break down pretty much along the lines of how one feels about the respective companies, so, no point in leaving any doubt.) I also have zero interest in using GV or most other Google services.
First, as to the part about, "that [the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database] will only be used in appropriate ways," I think the only appropriate way this could be used by Google is, not at all. However, I doubt very much that Google does not make very intensive use of all the contact, and other information you give them, wittingly or unwittngly. If Apple is truly sincere in what they say here, then, I applaud them.
.
I have at leat 4 apps that use my contacts to invite/reply to my friends and iTunes allows you to synch your contacts with Google Gmail. I don't know how any of them are using my contact list (and don't care).
Does Apple tell you what your contact list is used in MobileMe? Are they selling it or compiling information on what you're doing, who your contacting, where your GPS says you are?
I don't know, but all of these have been used for examples of Google doing wrong.
Why are any of these different than what GV is trying to get aprroved?
My take on the interesting part is how Apple & AT&T are both pointing the finger at each other and nobody is pointing the finger at Google (because they did no wrong).
i'm not sure apple is pointing fingers - at least not openly/directly. it reads to me as if apple has agreed to take the blame, att is pointing fingers, google is requesting to be redacted.. and my attention span is... look! a pony!
Still, I think the biggest problem Apple has with GV is, again, based on the summary description, its obvious intent of taking over the iPhone user experience for Google's benefit.
Google Voice was not developed with the iPhone as a target for competition. It just so happens that Google Voice offers things the iPhone does not on its own; it is a compelling and free product that Apple is too scared to allow as fair competition.
This response is a lie. Apple is actively engaged in restraint of trade via illegal monopolistic control of the app store. In fact, the whole notion of an exclusive Apple Store without alternatives is monopolistic and flagrant restraint of trade.
Notice the response to question 5? Not one word about the banning of Netshare, not one word about Adobe Flash being permanently banned from the iPhone.
But here's the lucky part for Apple: the FCC, FTC, and just about every other govt. regulatory body charged with oversight of corporate behavior are so full of cowards and layabouts that nothing substantive will come of any of this no matter how much Apple lies in depositions.
Apple is actively banning any and all products that show even the slightest potential of interfering with the iPhone revenue stream, not only Apples but ATT's as well (Until Apple decides to kick them to the curb, of course.) Everybody knows this. It is no secret. This "response" is a big puff of smoke up the FCC's rectum.
No one cares about this outside of the Mac internet forums. And I find myself caring less and less about it the more play this story gets.
It doesn't deserve this much attention. It's a single app, which on its own isn't very impressive to begin with.
Take a look at who covered this today (besides the FCC).
AP
New York Times
Reuters
USA Today
CNN
CNBC
CNet
And every Tech forum on the internet.
Yep, they all read Mac Forums and not the Facts.
It's a single App that is right now the biggest competitor to the iPhone.
Google introduced Google Chrome to Linux and it has become the most used Linux browser ever.
Google allows anyone to give their apps away for free (either in their store or from a 3rd pary site). This doesn't fit Apple's 60% Margin Profit for a product.
Google is the next Microsoft. It's only a matter of time and Steve Jobs lead the way by allowing them to show the world how great their Apps were while they were planning a full battle with them on the mobile, OS, Netbook and Cloud arena.
I think I looked at all the other comments and can't believe I'm the first to comment on the "other important parts" of the story....
....when announced, the App Store sounded like an extension of the model established by the iTunes Store... ....and seemed to fit nicely into the entire "seamless Apple ecosystem," provide "one stop shopping," be "convenient for developers of all sizes," etc., etc., but it is clearer day by day that the App Store is another creature altogether, with - I think - some very troubling implications which will only grow down the road.
First, it is very different from the iTunes store in key and fundamental ways. The iTunes store is NOT the only place one can buy media product to run on their iDevice. Get it from Amazon. Rip it from a CD or DVD. Other sources may have smaller catalogs, but still offer material not available through the iTunes store. (Beatles songs - at least until 9/9 - as one example.)
AND conversely, one can play material purchased from the iTunes store on non-Apple devices and incorporate it into apps other than iTunes. App store apps run only on iPhones. And the app store is the only place to get ANY software without voiding your contract with Apple by "jailbreaking" the device.
Developers may be the ones setting their own prices, but this is clearly a form of supply monopoly Apple (and perhaps few other companies) have never attempted with other computing devices. ANYONE can market any app for a Mac - or that matter, an MS PC, Linux PC, and, if I'm not mistaken, all the major gaming platforms, without passing a "mother may I" test from Apple (or Ubuntu or MS or Sony or Nintendo) - whether it duplicates part of the "core functionality" of the device's native OS's and apps, e.g., Mozilla, Opera and Chrome being used to replace IE or Safari, or potentially compromises the running of those systems in the eyes of their makers or not, e.g, all of the Windows utilities which may completely hose Windows in attempting to "clean the registry," etc., etc.
Apple's rejection of Google Voice (done on their own) is not totally unlike China's rejecting search engines that allow queries including the word "freedom." And takes "proprietary" to new heights, even if proprietary now means "Apple and willing fellow travelers," rather than just Apple itself.
Which brings me to my second point: Apple is setting itself up as judge and jury over the exercise of "speech," i.e., setting its own standards of censorship. They clearly state their view of what's acceptable as the supposed American mindset that blowing people's (even iconic people's) heads off is fine as long as it's labeled as "mature" (and what's mature about gore and violence?!!?), but that the American public must be protected from any mobile computer application which might display human female breasts - protected by that final line of defense heroically offered by - Apple, Inc.
WTF?? (In fairness, I'll point out that Google does the same on YouTube, and additionally allows vile hate speech and the entire range of epithet-filled language, but again, no nipples, in YT videos - and that Apple offers numerous f-word filled podcasts for free on the IT store.)
But in iPhone Appland, besides making Apple the unelected, unaccountable, bluenose avatar of what and what isn't "appropriate" for its users in "apps," isn't such content freely available on websites reachable via Safari on the iPhone anyway??
And in saying that it reserves the right to ban apps that are, if not pornographic or dangerous to the efficient running of its devices, it includes its prerogative to ban apps it deems "defamatory."
Which to me implies if someone developed an app which included content such as this very post, e.g., taking Apple to task and criticizing its practices, cultures, and standards, especially in harsher terms than I'm using here, how likely do you think Apple would be to approve said "defamatory" app for sale in its store?
There are bad and possibly dangerous digital device precedents being set here where a private corporation is assuming the right to make decisions - and sometimes decisions about morality and what constitutes "defamation," which have always been in the purview of users and other truly independent developers of and for personal computing devices.
I didn't originally have a lot of love for the "jailbreakers" of iPhones, but I'm starting to admire them and offer support more and more, 'cos I see their point now. I really hope they manage to find ways to keep the IPhone open to all of its potential legal uses while still keeping the OS up to date and not creating an unwarranteed brick.
You can say, OK, don't buy an iPhone (and be deprived of the premiere mobile pocket PC). And you might say that it's likely you won't find racy or other "problem" apps being offered in the Nokia, Pre, Verizon, etc. stores that are popping up faster than you can say "clone Apple's business and control model," but that doesn't make their practices any less corporate-authoritarian than Apple's.
Is it really in our interest for the next major computer platform (or even platforms) to have single suppliers of programs, especially if they assert unwarranted, arbitrary private powers over speech, morality, programming styles, program functions, etc.?
One can also argue these policies raise issues of restraint of trade. That is, Apple is also asserting here then, that it is the sole supplier of software for its platform, cutting out not only all brick and mortar retailers, but also every other e-merchant which might sacrifice margins to offer iPhone/iPod touch software for less by choking off all competition.
And if this stands, what's next? The Mac App store (as the only way to buy, install and run only applications Apple wants bought, installed and run on all Apple computers? And, following suit, the Windows App store, etc?
Again, to rephrase I said in the title of my post, am I the only one reminded of the world depicted in "Rollerball" by the marketing model that's growing right in front of us?
Comments
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...
Google specifically said in their New York Times article that the Web Version wouldn't allow all of the features to be used to their fullest potential.
Edit.
You have to click on "Letter" in the last paragraph of the PDF letter to the FCC for the full reply from Google. Trust me, it's worth the time to read it.
Google specifically said in their New York Times article that the Web Version wouldn't allow all of the features to be used to their fullest potential.
Maybe. Do you have a link for that? I don't think google had formaly commented publically on their plans for a web app for the iPhone. The only reference I recall was Pogue saying he had spoken to a product manager at google that said it would be fully featured. I dug up the quote
"Google says it is readying a replacement for the Google Voice app that will offer exactly the same features as the rejected app—except that it will take the form of a specialized, iPhone-shaped Web page. For all intents and purposes, it will behave exactly the same as the app would have; you can even install it as an icon on your Home screen"
I would tend to agree. For all intents and purposes, most of the main features could be replicated through a web app. But, as I said, without Push, it would fail to become a fulltime replacement for most users. and yeah, it could do everything the native app wold do and without Push, then I would say it is not doing it to its full potential.
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.
Incorrect. GV currently has an iPhone "optimized" web interface. Sucks compared to the best native iPhone app, Sean Kovacs GV Mobile. And we're pretty safe in assuming that the Google GV app would have been way ahead of GV Mobile, no offense to Sean.
i'm sorry. i should have put my 'corporate doublespeak' ears on first...
Maybe. Do you have a link for that? I don't think google had formaly commented publically on their plans for a web app for the iPhone. The only reference I recall was Pogue saying he had spoken to a product manager at google that said it would be fully featured. I dug up the quote
I would tend to agree. For all intents and purposes, most of the main features could be replicated through a web app. But, as I said, without Push, it would fail to become a fulltime replacement for most users. and yeah, it could do everything the native app wold do and without Push, then I would say it is not doing it to its full potential.
Link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/te...s/22apple.html
Click on Letter in the last paragraph for the response.
I'll make it even easier. Here's the link to the response from Google.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...gle_Filing.pdf
... because the app has not actually been rejected, so no decision has been made by apple, therefore there was no 'involvement in a decision', but possibly in a non-decision.
i'm sorry. i should have put my 'corporate doublespeak' ears on first...
It?s called an apologist response to the facts.
And yet the Google disciples can somehow completely gloss over that little fact. Amazing...
Really? Amazing? How about we bought GV Mobile knowing that it worked and we don't care how it works but it works. There is nothing to gloss over. Apple has crossed a line.
I love how Apple is still unsure whether or not it is a VOIP service. From the company that brought you OSX, they are still studying whether or not GV is VOIP. Give me a break...
Incorrect. GV currently has an iPhone "optimized" web interface. Sucks compared to the best native iPhone app, Sean Kovacs GV Mobile. And we're pretty safe in assuming that the Google GV app would have been way ahead of GV Mobile, no offense to Sean.
Edit:I'll just say a mobile optimized site is not the same as an iphone web app.
It?s called an apologist response to the facts.
makes you wonder how many lawyers were involved between the three companies to write these letters...
of course the really interesting parts in the google letter are redacted.
... The [Google Voice] application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone?s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone?s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. 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. ...
I will start off by saying that I'm not a fan of Google, am a fan but not a fanboy of Apple, and am somewhat neutral on AT&T, at least in comparison to other wireless carriers. (I think most of the responses from those who actually seemed to have read the article and Q&A, and even those who didn't, break down pretty much along the lines of how one feels about the respective companies, so, no point in leaving any doubt.) I also have zero interest in using GV or most other Google services.
First, as to the part about, "that [the iPhone user?s entire Contacts database] will only be used in appropriate ways," I think the only appropriate way this could be used by Google is, not at all. However, I doubt very much that Google does not make very intensive use of all the contact, and other, information you give them, wittingly or unwittngly. If Apple is truly sincere in what they say here, then, I applaud them.
(Of course, the cynic in me wonders if this isn't just smoke, although, the idealist hopes not.)
As for the rest, I'm somewhat surprised to find that AT&T was not at least in part behind the rejection/holdup of GV.
I'm also sympathetic to Apple's position here. (And, since I have no interest in GV, clearly, I'm not upset by not being able to use it. Replace, duplicate, mimic, call it what you will, it seems pretty clear that the purpose of the GV app is to take over the telephony/messaging/contacts user experience, effectively turning the iPhone into a tool to serve Googles ends, at least for those users who would use GV. I can clearly see why Apple would view this as a competitor's Trojan Horse.
And, while perhaps not for posters on this forum, if the GV app works according to Apple's rather summary description, I do think it could potentially cause a not insignificant amount of user confusion. For example, if a relatively non tech savvy person installs the GV app and starts intermixing use of it with the built in apps of the same functionality, they might well find it confusing that they have voicemails in two different places, receive text messages in two different apps, and so on.
Obviously, this also creates a potential support problem for Apple. I mean, it's not like you can call Google for support, can you? (Well, honestly, I don't know, but I'm not aware of any Google service that they offer phone support for.) And would some users not even distinguish which app they are trying to call or message from, or would they not just assume it's "an iPhone problem" and call Apple, perhaps neglecting to mention that they aren't using the built-in apps for these things?
Still, I think the biggest problem Apple has with GV is, again, based on the summary description, its obvious intent of taking over the iPhone user experience for Google's benefit.
I know a lot of people think Google is an absolutely wonderful, benign company. I on the other hand think they tossed the "do no evil" plan pretty much before they wrote it down. To me at least, it's clear that they intend to control the technology world, and as much as they can reach beyond it, as much as they can, and on a scope that Microsoft never even imagined.
So, if Apple throws a roadblock in their way, in the interests of self preservation, that slows them down a bit, I have no problem with that.
makes you wonder how many lawyers were involved between the three companies to write these letters...
of course the really interesting parts in the google letter are redacted.
My take on the interesting part is how Apple & AT&T are both pointing the finger at each other and nobody is pointing the finger at Google (because they did no wrong).
Link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/te...s/22apple.html
Click on Letter in the last paragraph for the response.
I'll make it even easier. Here's the link to the response from Google.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...gle_Filing.pdf
So, then they never do actually say the web app "wouldn't allow all of the features to be used to their fullest potential", specifically or oetherwise. Instead, they correctly state that a native app would provide some advantages. Their specific example is access to the Phone address book. This is not a core function of the Google Voice Service.
In terms of the feature offered by the Google Voice Service, a web app could provide full functionality. But it would not have access to advantages provided by the OS..like access to the address book...or Push.
Pretty much what I said, though I did not specifically mention the address book. That it would lose Push is much more important than the address book. Though the address book would be a nice freebie from the OS too.
I will start off by saying that I'm not a fan of Google, am a fan but not a fanboy of Apple, and am somewhat neutral on AT&T, at least in comparison to other wireless carriers. (I think most of the responses from those who actually seemed to have read the article and Q&A, and even those who didn't, break down pretty much along the lines of how one feels about the respective companies, so, no point in leaving any doubt.) I also have zero interest in using GV or most other Google services.
First, as to the part about, "that [the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database] will only be used in appropriate ways," I think the only appropriate way this could be used by Google is, not at all. However, I doubt very much that Google does not make very intensive use of all the contact, and other information you give them, wittingly or unwittngly. If Apple is truly sincere in what they say here, then, I applaud them.
.
I have at leat 4 apps that use my contacts to invite/reply to my friends and iTunes allows you to synch your contacts with Google Gmail. I don't know how any of them are using my contact list (and don't care).
Does Apple tell you what your contact list is used in MobileMe? Are they selling it or compiling information on what you're doing, who your contacting, where your GPS says you are?
I don't know, but all of these have been used for examples of Google doing wrong.
Why are any of these different than what GV is trying to get aprroved?
My take on the interesting part is how Apple & AT&T are both pointing the finger at each other and nobody is pointing the finger at Google (because they did no wrong).
i'm not sure apple is pointing fingers - at least not openly/directly. it reads to me as if apple has agreed to take the blame, att is pointing fingers, google is requesting to be redacted.. and my attention span is... look! a pony!
Still, I think the biggest problem Apple has with GV is, again, based on the summary description, its obvious intent of taking over the iPhone user experience for Google's benefit.
Google Voice was not developed with the iPhone as a target for competition. It just so happens that Google Voice offers things the iPhone does not on its own; it is a compelling and free product that Apple is too scared to allow as fair competition.
It doesn't deserve this much attention. It's a single app, which on its own isn't very impressive to begin with.
Notice the response to question 5? Not one word about the banning of Netshare, not one word about Adobe Flash being permanently banned from the iPhone.
But here's the lucky part for Apple: the FCC, FTC, and just about every other govt. regulatory body charged with oversight of corporate behavior are so full of cowards and layabouts that nothing substantive will come of any of this no matter how much Apple lies in depositions.
Apple is actively banning any and all products that show even the slightest potential of interfering with the iPhone revenue stream, not only Apples but ATT's as well (Until Apple decides to kick them to the curb, of course.) Everybody knows this. It is no secret. This "response" is a big puff of smoke up the FCC's rectum.
No one cares about this outside of the Mac internet forums. And I find myself caring less and less about it the more play this story gets.
It doesn't deserve this much attention. It's a single app, which on its own isn't very impressive to begin with.
Take a look at who covered this today (besides the FCC).
AP
New York Times
Reuters
USA Today
CNN
CNBC
CNet
And every Tech forum on the internet.
Yep, they all read Mac Forums and not the Facts.
It's a single App that is right now the biggest competitor to the iPhone.
Google introduced Google Chrome to Linux and it has become the most used Linux browser ever.
Google allows anyone to give their apps away for free (either in their store or from a 3rd pary site). This doesn't fit Apple's 60% Margin Profit for a product.
Google is the next Microsoft. It's only a matter of time and Steve Jobs lead the way by allowing them to show the world how great their Apps were while they were planning a full battle with them on the mobile, OS, Netbook and Cloud arena.
....when announced, the App Store sounded like an extension of the model established by the iTunes Store... ....and seemed to fit nicely into the entire "seamless Apple ecosystem," provide "one stop shopping," be "convenient for developers of all sizes," etc., etc., but it is clearer day by day that the App Store is another creature altogether, with - I think - some very troubling implications which will only grow down the road.
First, it is very different from the iTunes store in key and fundamental ways. The iTunes store is NOT the only place one can buy media product to run on their iDevice. Get it from Amazon. Rip it from a CD or DVD. Other sources may have smaller catalogs, but still offer material not available through the iTunes store. (Beatles songs - at least until 9/9 - as one example.)
AND conversely, one can play material purchased from the iTunes store on non-Apple devices and incorporate it into apps other than iTunes. App store apps run only on iPhones. And the app store is the only place to get ANY software without voiding your contract with Apple by "jailbreaking" the device.
Developers may be the ones setting their own prices, but this is clearly a form of supply monopoly Apple (and perhaps few other companies) have never attempted with other computing devices. ANYONE can market any app for a Mac - or that matter, an MS PC, Linux PC, and, if I'm not mistaken, all the major gaming platforms, without passing a "mother may I" test from Apple (or Ubuntu or MS or Sony or Nintendo) - whether it duplicates part of the "core functionality" of the device's native OS's and apps, e.g., Mozilla, Opera and Chrome being used to replace IE or Safari, or potentially compromises the running of those systems in the eyes of their makers or not, e.g, all of the Windows utilities which may completely hose Windows in attempting to "clean the registry," etc., etc.
Apple's rejection of Google Voice (done on their own) is not totally unlike China's rejecting search engines that allow queries including the word "freedom." And takes "proprietary" to new heights, even if proprietary now means "Apple and willing fellow travelers," rather than just Apple itself.
Which brings me to my second point: Apple is setting itself up as judge and jury over the exercise of "speech," i.e., setting its own standards of censorship. They clearly state their view of what's acceptable as the supposed American mindset that blowing people's (even iconic people's) heads off is fine as long as it's labeled as "mature" (and what's mature about gore and violence?!!?), but that the American public must be protected from any mobile computer application which might display human female breasts - protected by that final line of defense heroically offered by - Apple, Inc.
WTF?? (In fairness, I'll point out that Google does the same on YouTube, and additionally allows vile hate speech and the entire range of epithet-filled language, but again, no nipples, in YT videos - and that Apple offers numerous f-word filled podcasts for free on the IT store.)
But in iPhone Appland, besides making Apple the unelected, unaccountable, bluenose avatar of what and what isn't "appropriate" for its users in "apps," isn't such content freely available on websites reachable via Safari on the iPhone anyway??
And in saying that it reserves the right to ban apps that are, if not pornographic or dangerous to the efficient running of its devices, it includes its prerogative to ban apps it deems "defamatory."
Which to me implies if someone developed an app which included content such as this very post, e.g., taking Apple to task and criticizing its practices, cultures, and standards, especially in harsher terms than I'm using here, how likely do you think Apple would be to approve said "defamatory" app for sale in its store?
There are bad and possibly dangerous digital device precedents being set here where a private corporation is assuming the right to make decisions - and sometimes decisions about morality and what constitutes "defamation," which have always been in the purview of users and other truly independent developers of and for personal computing devices.
I didn't originally have a lot of love for the "jailbreakers" of iPhones, but I'm starting to admire them and offer support more and more, 'cos I see their point now. I really hope they manage to find ways to keep the IPhone open to all of its potential legal uses while still keeping the OS up to date and not creating an unwarranteed brick.
You can say, OK, don't buy an iPhone (and be deprived of the premiere mobile pocket PC). And you might say that it's likely you won't find racy or other "problem" apps being offered in the Nokia, Pre, Verizon, etc. stores that are popping up faster than you can say "clone Apple's business and control model," but that doesn't make their practices any less corporate-authoritarian than Apple's.
Is it really in our interest for the next major computer platform (or even platforms) to have single suppliers of programs, especially if they assert unwarranted, arbitrary private powers over speech, morality, programming styles, program functions, etc.?
One can also argue these policies raise issues of restraint of trade. That is, Apple is also asserting here then, that it is the sole supplier of software for its platform, cutting out not only all brick and mortar retailers, but also every other e-merchant which might sacrifice margins to offer iPhone/iPod touch software for less by choking off all competition.
And if this stands, what's next? The Mac App store (as the only way to buy, install and run only applications Apple wants bought, installed and run on all Apple computers? And, following suit, the Windows App store, etc?
Again, to rephrase I said in the title of my post, am I the only one reminded of the world depicted in "Rollerball" by the marketing model that's growing right in front of us?
Damn, I hope not!