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.
Do you have any source for your assertion that "dropping VVM would cost Apple money"?
Apple stated that Google Voice was, contrary to media reports, not rejected from the App Store, but remains under review. In addition, it stated that the software has been delayed solely by Apple.
Apple did note that it continues to fulfill the obligations of its contract with AT&T. The contract states that Apple will not allow the iPhone to access voice over IP services via the AT&T cellular network. Apple said it is unsure whether Google Voice includes VOIP elements in how it routes calls. However, the contract with AT&T did not specifically prohibit the Google Voice application from being approved -- that issue was entirely with the application's apparent mimicking of the iPhone's core features, Apple said.
AT&T also issued a statement Friday denying any involvement in the state of apparent limbo the Google Voice iPhone software currently finds itself in. AT&T and Apple both stated that AT&T was never contacted by Apple for consultation on the Google Voice application, but that the decision was made solely by the iPhone maker.
Apple and AT&T colluded to prevent AT&T from facing competition from Skype and Google Voice.
When Apple states that it makes the final decision in the approval process of applications, or that Google Voice has not been rejected, but is still under study, indefinite study, Apple is denying the obvious, i.e.:
1- The buyer of an iPhone owns the iPhone and can do as he pleases without interference from Apple;
2- By not approving in a timely manner the Google Voice applications, Apple is interferring with the property rights of iPhone buyers;
3- By enforcing a clause of its secret agreement with AT&T, and not approving software which makes uses of Voice over Internet Protocol, Apple is forcing its own contractual obligations on strangers who didn't sign anything with AT&T, i.e. software developpers, Google and iPhone buyers;
4- Anti-trust laws and Consumer Protection laws are matters of Public Policy which apply in spite of contracts that would attempt to deny, twart or restrict their application.
Apple and AT&T are guilty as charged. They should face heavy fines and a permanent injunction to stop their anti-competitive actions.
Equally important, Apple has showed its contempt for customers one time too many. Shame on you, Steve Jobs. Shame on you, Tim Cook.
Well, sure it's a shame about Google Voice - to some. I personally could care less. But every major app will have its cheerleaders, and if it promises something interesting and is ultimately rejected, there'll be crying over it.
Tech forums and tech writers are the one's applying the spin to all this. Once again it's the niche online interest groups that are projecting their interests onto the wider market. major news outlets pick up the story because suddenly a government agency is involved. If the FCC hadn't stepped in this story would have been dead in a matter of days.
Meanwhile, everyone, and I mean, EVERYONE is lining up to develop for the iPhone - often passing up other devices.
If you don't like what's on the App Store or Apple's policies, then you can go to one of the other vedors who I'm sure will offer a vastly better experience overall.
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.
Here we go again. Apple does not have a monopoly in cell phones, so none of the above applies. Never has, and probably never will. End of story.
Back to the issue. What is the problem that Apple sees with GV that they are still debating internally?
We can now exclude AT&T as the driving force, as both AT&T and Apple make clear.
Apple says Google Voice is an App that messes with the simplicity of Apple's Phone, Messages, and Contacts apps. We know that Apple doesn't care if its app functions are duplicated within the Safari browser, and we know Apple does sometimes care if its functions are replaced with an App. What isn't clear is when does Apple care and when it doesn't care.
One possibility is that raised by Tulkas, which is that Apple cares when its own service needs to be protected, which is only necessary when a native App is used, as a web app wouldn't measure up to an optimized Apple App.
But another possibility is that Apple cares when a submitted App alters/replaces local data (that was otherwise created and maintained by the Apple App), AND when the local data is data that is accessible to all Apps (like contacts, songs, podcasts, photos) AND/OR when Apple's local App is callable by all other Apps (like Phone, Safari, iPod, Mail). This could cause confusion given the current APIs, though it could certainly be fixed through enhancements to the APIs (allowing users to change default Apps).
I haven't fully explored this, but it seems that many of the Apps rejected for "duplicates functionality" fits this criteria of impacting local data maintained by Apple's App but accessible to multiple Apps.
Is THAT what all this fuss is over?? I already have most of those features with my current provider, which I pay for, which work 100% of the time. I guess the conference calling might be interesting. maybe recording calls as well. But not enough for me to blow my fuse.
Call free within the continental US and to Canada
And what's that free calls BS? Sounds pretty fishy.
Edit:I'll just say a mobile optimized site is not the same as an iphone web app.
How about a vastly inferior user experience lacking large chunks of functionality according to at least one user who has actually used both the GV mobile web site and the GV Mobile app.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
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.
And we know this exactly how? Are we a Google Voice user? Did you beta the Google Voice app somehow? Were we even a GV Mobile customer by chance? Is this trolling thing of ours intentional or subconscious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonVendorFan
Take a look at who covered this today (besides the FCC).
How about a vastly inferior user experience lacking large chunks of functionality according to at least one user who has actually used both the GV mobile web site and the GV Mobile app.
And we know this exactly how? Are we a Google Voice user? Did you beta the Google Voice app somehow? Were we even a GV Mobile customer by chance? Is this trolling thing of ours intentional or subconscious?
Thank you.
At best, it's glorified call forwarding. Big deal.
At best, it's glorified call forwarding. Big deal.
And are we now going to admit to trolling and never having used the Google Voice app / service or did you want to go back and forth for a while? I hope its the former cause I'm getting a little sleepy.
Apple and AT&T colluded to prevent AT&T from facing competition from Skype and Google Voice.
What we have here is 3 companies about the same size --- and 2 people sat on both Google and Apple. If there were colluding, it would be Google and Apple.
Both Apple and Google are both building mobile phone OS'es --- it could be both companies trying to build Google Voice type of apps, but Apple trying to kill its competitor by stalling on app approval.
I love how people thinks that the carriers are some giant evil industry --- the fact is that 99.999999999% of the carriers worldwide are much much much much smaller than Apple and Google. A lot of people call Verizon the evil big red corp --- yet Verizon is 1/2 the size of Apple and 1/2 the size of Google. Vodafone is smaller than Apple and Google. T-Mobile in Germany is smaller than Apple and Google. DoCoMo is smaller than Apple and Google.
Apple and AT&T colluded to prevent AT&T from facing competition from Skype and Google Voice.
When Apple states that it makes the final decision in the approval process of applications, or that Google Voice has not been rejected, but is still under study, indefinite study, Apple is denying the obvious, i.e.:
1- The buyer of an iPhone owns the iPhone and can do as he pleases without interference from Apple;
2- By not approving in a timely manner the Google Voice applications, Apple is interferring with the property rights of iPhone buyers;
3- By enforcing a clause of its secret agreement with AT&T, and not approving software which makes uses of Voice over Internet Protocol, Apple is forcing its own contractual obligations on strangers who didn't sign anything with AT&T, i.e. software developpers, Google and iPhone buyers;
4- Anti-trust laws and Consumer Protection laws are matters of Public Policy which apply in spite of contracts that would attempt to deny, twart or restrict their application.
Apple and AT&T are guilty as charged. They should face heavy fines and a permanent injunction to stop their anti-competitive actions.
Lots of legal words used here but written with no legal understanding.
Maybe you should read AT&T's submission - it actually quoted Court decisions on the rights of companies to partner. (AT&T's submission was clearly written by lawyers; Apple's and Google's not so much.)
wrt 1, not exactly true; iPhone buyers agree to terms of service regarding warranties and cellular network use, so they own the iPhone but under a set of conditions if they are to use certain services. With regard to the App Store, Apple doesn't force you to use it, and if you do, you agree to more terms of service. Alternatively, one can jailbreak their iPhone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.
wrt 2, any property rights one has on the iPhone doesn't extend to the App Store. Again, one can jailbreak their phone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.
wrt 3, odds are those "strangers" all have signed contracts with AT&T or other carriers, because its damn hard to write usable iPhone apps without owning an iPhone. (And odds are Apple has similar contracts with all of its other carrier partners.)
Of more interest is this nugget in AT&T's response:
"...we (AT&T) look forward to learning more about Google Voice based on that response, in particular, Google's position on the regulatory classification of Google Voice and the intercarrier compensation applicable to calls made using the Google Voice platform."
Whatever that means, it looks like AT&T is getting ready to pounce...
Its apple's phone.. its apple store. They can do whatever they want with it. If they don't like your App, then suck it up and make a new one. The point of the App store is to make apps to enhance and give extra perks to the phone. Not to replace the features that make it an iphone.
Also doesnt EVERYONE who creates an App for iphone (including google) need to purchase the SDK.. which lays out the FULL service agreement of what apple requires in apps and what their restrictions are... BEFORE the software is purchased? You can't agree to something, then turn around and complain about it.. especially when you are WELL aware your creating something the company is not OK with as you create it.
Total BS! I hope Apple and AT&T get their rear ends handed to them. Skype, Sling and GV all sould be allowed to use 3G. I'm paying for supposedly unlimited data (which also should be addressed in this investigation), How i use that data connection is up to me. It would be like Comcast telling me i can not have voip like Vonage because it offers phone service or i can't watch Hulu or other video services because it sells cable. I hope Google stays the course and does not back down as they are hope for freedom. God knows iPhone owners are too passive to fight back.
Frankly their use of the finger instead of a stylus is not innovative, a stlus provides more accurate control and one could have been added to give us choice. LG is developingone that works with capacitive screens Apple does not like giving consumers choice. It likes to decide for us. That is unamerican to the core. A dictatorship. The FCC should see through all this blatant BS and lies.
Its apple's phone.. its apple store. They can do whatever they want with it. If they don't like your App, then suck it up and make a new one. The point of the App store is to make apps to enhance and give extra perks to the phone. Not to replace the features that make it an iphone.
Also doesnt EVERYONE who creates an App for iphone (including google) need to purchase the SDK.. which lays out the FULL service agreement of what apple requires in apps and what their restrictions are... BEFORE the software is purchased? You can't agree to something, then turn around and complain about it.. especially when you are WELL aware your creating something the company is not OK with as you create it.
Seriously dude! Its my money, i pay for a service and the device. No they can't do whatever they want. So how does canning 3G use of Sling ehhance anything? They are dictators pure and simple. They do nothing to enhance my experience by denying me what i want. If AT&T's infrastructure is too weak to support their lofty claims then that's their fault.
Lots of legal words used here but written with no legal understanding.
Maybe you should read AT&T's submission - it actually quoted Court decisions on the rights of companies to partner. (AT&T's submission was clearly written by lawyers; Apple's and Google's not so much.)
wrt 1, not exactly true; iPhone buyers agree to terms of service regarding warranties and cellular network use, so they own the iPhone but under a set of conditions if they are to use certain services. With regard to the App Store, Apple doesn't force you to use it, and if you do, you agree to more terms of service. Alternatively, one can jailbreak their iPhone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.
wrt 2, any property rights one has on the iPhone doesn't extend to the App Store. Again, one can jailbreak their phone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.
wrt 3, odds are those "strangers" all have signed contracts with AT&T or other carriers, because its damn hard to write usable iPhone apps without owning an iPhone. (And odds are Apple has similar contracts with all of its other carrier partners.)
Again Seriously! Jaiklbreaking is all well and good if Apple isn't constantly trying to brick your iPhone with updates. Who fixes Apple software issues? You void any warranties on the phone thus have to pay ouf pocket for any hardware repairs, which is costly. If it can't be repaired then you have to pay full price for a new one. This is terrorism, plain and simple. Keep consumers passive through fear and intimidation which is why the majority of people don't jailbreak. Application developers would stand to save the fee it pays Apple for inclusion in the app store if they choose to ignore the App store and develop what they want. They stand to make more money that way and they can update things quickly. Apple and AT&T would loose control. Which why this BS has not worked with other smart phones and carriers in te past and why these same carriers are trying to follow the same model of a proprietary app store and restrict everything.
Cable companies went through something similar when they refused ISP access to their cable internet infrastructure (the highway if you will) which the FCC intervened and prevented.
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.
Please spare me the Monopolistic tactic over a phone that has 5% of the mobile market. Your head is so far up Google's rectum you're able to tickle it's tonsils.
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.
If I wanted to hear some rant, I go watch WWE on TV :P
Please spare me the Monopolistic tactic over a phone that has 5% of the mobile market. Your head is so far up Google's rectum you're able to tickle it's tonsils.
This isn't a criticism, per se, of the Apple store approval process.
Just an observation using simple math.
You can draw your own conclusions:
Apple stated above that they get (on average) 8500 apps per week to review, and that they have approx. 40 people to review them. Apple also stated that each app is reviewed by two people.
8500 apps / 40 people = 212 apps per reviewer per week (all calculations rounded off)
Assuming a 40-hour work week (2400 minutes),
2400 minutes / 212 apps = only 11 minutes review time per app
But each app must be reviewed by two people, so it cuts that time in half to roughly 5 1/2 minutes review time per app.
And in this very brief 5 minutes of review time, can any of these reviewers actually determine everything that Apple states they check for?
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.
Do you have any source for your assertion that "dropping VVM would cost Apple money"?
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.
Same here!
Apple stated that Google Voice was, contrary to media reports, not rejected from the App Store, but remains under review. In addition, it stated that the software has been delayed solely by Apple.
Apple did note that it continues to fulfill the obligations of its contract with AT&T. The contract states that Apple will not allow the iPhone to access voice over IP services via the AT&T cellular network. Apple said it is unsure whether Google Voice includes VOIP elements in how it routes calls. However, the contract with AT&T did not specifically prohibit the Google Voice application from being approved -- that issue was entirely with the application's apparent mimicking of the iPhone's core features, Apple said.
AT&T also issued a statement Friday denying any involvement in the state of apparent limbo the Google Voice iPhone software currently finds itself in. AT&T and Apple both stated that AT&T was never contacted by Apple for consultation on the Google Voice application, but that the decision was made solely by the iPhone maker.
Apple and AT&T colluded to prevent AT&T from facing competition from Skype and Google Voice.
When Apple states that it makes the final decision in the approval process of applications, or that Google Voice has not been rejected, but is still under study, indefinite study, Apple is denying the obvious, i.e.:
1- The buyer of an iPhone owns the iPhone and can do as he pleases without interference from Apple;
2- By not approving in a timely manner the Google Voice applications, Apple is interferring with the property rights of iPhone buyers;
3- By enforcing a clause of its secret agreement with AT&T, and not approving software which makes uses of Voice over Internet Protocol, Apple is forcing its own contractual obligations on strangers who didn't sign anything with AT&T, i.e. software developpers, Google and iPhone buyers;
4- Anti-trust laws and Consumer Protection laws are matters of Public Policy which apply in spite of contracts that would attempt to deny, twart or restrict their application.
Apple and AT&T are guilty as charged. They should face heavy fines and a permanent injunction to stop their anti-competitive actions.
Equally important, Apple has showed its contempt for customers one time too many. Shame on you, Steve Jobs. Shame on you, Tim Cook.
Same here!
Well, sure it's a shame about Google Voice - to some. I personally could care less. But every major app will have its cheerleaders, and if it promises something interesting and is ultimately rejected, there'll be crying over it.
Tech forums and tech writers are the one's applying the spin to all this. Once again it's the niche online interest groups that are projecting their interests onto the wider market. major news outlets pick up the story because suddenly a government agency is involved. If the FCC hadn't stepped in this story would have been dead in a matter of days.
Meanwhile, everyone, and I mean, EVERYONE is lining up to develop for the iPhone - often passing up other devices.
If you don't like what's on the App Store or Apple's policies, then you can go to one of the other vedors who I'm sure will offer a vastly better experience overall.
Oh wait . . .
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.
Here we go again. Apple does not have a monopoly in cell phones, so none of the above applies. Never has, and probably never will. End of story.
Back to the issue. What is the problem that Apple sees with GV that they are still debating internally?
We can now exclude AT&T as the driving force, as both AT&T and Apple make clear.
Apple says Google Voice is an App that messes with the simplicity of Apple's Phone, Messages, and Contacts apps. We know that Apple doesn't care if its app functions are duplicated within the Safari browser, and we know Apple does sometimes care if its functions are replaced with an App. What isn't clear is when does Apple care and when it doesn't care.
One possibility is that raised by Tulkas, which is that Apple cares when its own service needs to be protected, which is only necessary when a native App is used, as a web app wouldn't measure up to an optimized Apple App.
But another possibility is that Apple cares when a submitted App alters/replaces local data (that was otherwise created and maintained by the Apple App), AND when the local data is data that is accessible to all Apps (like contacts, songs, podcasts, photos) AND/OR when Apple's local App is callable by all other Apps (like Phone, Safari, iPod, Mail). This could cause confusion given the current APIs, though it could certainly be fixed through enhancements to the APIs (allowing users to change default Apps).
I haven't fully explored this, but it seems that many of the Apps rejected for "duplicates functionality" fits this criteria of impacting local data maintained by Apple's App but accessible to multiple Apps.
Is THAT what all this fuss is over?? I already have most of those features with my current provider, which I pay for, which work 100% of the time. I guess the conference calling might be interesting. maybe recording calls as well. But not enough for me to blow my fuse.
Call free within the continental US and to Canada
And what's that free calls BS? Sounds pretty fishy.
Edit:I'll just say a mobile optimized site is not the same as an iphone web app.
How about a vastly inferior user experience lacking large chunks of functionality according to at least one user who has actually used both the GV mobile web site and the GV Mobile app.
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.
And we know this exactly how? Are we a Google Voice user? Did you beta the Google Voice app somehow? Were we even a GV Mobile customer by chance? Is this trolling thing of ours intentional or subconscious?
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.
Thank you.
How about a vastly inferior user experience lacking large chunks of functionality according to at least one user who has actually used both the GV mobile web site and the GV Mobile app.
And we know this exactly how? Are we a Google Voice user? Did you beta the Google Voice app somehow? Were we even a GV Mobile customer by chance? Is this trolling thing of ours intentional or subconscious?
Thank you.
At best, it's glorified call forwarding. Big deal.
At best, it's glorified call forwarding. Big deal.
And are we now going to admit to trolling and never having used the Google Voice app / service or did you want to go back and forth for a while? I hope its the former cause I'm getting a little sleepy.
Apple and AT&T colluded to prevent AT&T from facing competition from Skype and Google Voice.
What we have here is 3 companies about the same size --- and 2 people sat on both Google and Apple. If there were colluding, it would be Google and Apple.
Both Apple and Google are both building mobile phone OS'es --- it could be both companies trying to build Google Voice type of apps, but Apple trying to kill its competitor by stalling on app approval.
I love how people thinks that the carriers are some giant evil industry --- the fact is that 99.999999999% of the carriers worldwide are much much much much smaller than Apple and Google. A lot of people call Verizon the evil big red corp --- yet Verizon is 1/2 the size of Apple and 1/2 the size of Google. Vodafone is smaller than Apple and Google. T-Mobile in Germany is smaller than Apple and Google. DoCoMo is smaller than Apple and Google.
Apple and AT&T colluded to prevent AT&T from facing competition from Skype and Google Voice.
When Apple states that it makes the final decision in the approval process of applications, or that Google Voice has not been rejected, but is still under study, indefinite study, Apple is denying the obvious, i.e.:
1- The buyer of an iPhone owns the iPhone and can do as he pleases without interference from Apple;
2- By not approving in a timely manner the Google Voice applications, Apple is interferring with the property rights of iPhone buyers;
3- By enforcing a clause of its secret agreement with AT&T, and not approving software which makes uses of Voice over Internet Protocol, Apple is forcing its own contractual obligations on strangers who didn't sign anything with AT&T, i.e. software developpers, Google and iPhone buyers;
4- Anti-trust laws and Consumer Protection laws are matters of Public Policy which apply in spite of contracts that would attempt to deny, twart or restrict their application.
Apple and AT&T are guilty as charged. They should face heavy fines and a permanent injunction to stop their anti-competitive actions.
Lots of legal words used here but written with no legal understanding.
Maybe you should read AT&T's submission - it actually quoted Court decisions on the rights of companies to partner. (AT&T's submission was clearly written by lawyers; Apple's and Google's not so much.)
wrt 1, not exactly true; iPhone buyers agree to terms of service regarding warranties and cellular network use, so they own the iPhone but under a set of conditions if they are to use certain services. With regard to the App Store, Apple doesn't force you to use it, and if you do, you agree to more terms of service. Alternatively, one can jailbreak their iPhone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.
wrt 2, any property rights one has on the iPhone doesn't extend to the App Store. Again, one can jailbreak their phone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.
wrt 3, odds are those "strangers" all have signed contracts with AT&T or other carriers, because its damn hard to write usable iPhone apps without owning an iPhone. (And odds are Apple has similar contracts with all of its other carrier partners.)
"...we (AT&T) look forward to learning more about Google Voice based on that response, in particular, Google's position on the regulatory classification of Google Voice and the intercarrier compensation applicable to calls made using the Google Voice platform."
Whatever that means, it looks like AT&T is getting ready to pounce...
Also doesnt EVERYONE who creates an App for iphone (including google) need to purchase the SDK.. which lays out the FULL service agreement of what apple requires in apps and what their restrictions are... BEFORE the software is purchased? You can't agree to something, then turn around and complain about it.. especially when you are WELL aware your creating something the company is not OK with as you create it.
Frankly their use of the finger instead of a stylus is not innovative, a stlus provides more accurate control and one could have been added to give us choice. LG is developingone that works with capacitive screens Apple does not like giving consumers choice. It likes to decide for us. That is unamerican to the core. A dictatorship. The FCC should see through all this blatant BS and lies.
Its apple's phone.. its apple store. They can do whatever they want with it. If they don't like your App, then suck it up and make a new one. The point of the App store is to make apps to enhance and give extra perks to the phone. Not to replace the features that make it an iphone.
Also doesnt EVERYONE who creates an App for iphone (including google) need to purchase the SDK.. which lays out the FULL service agreement of what apple requires in apps and what their restrictions are... BEFORE the software is purchased? You can't agree to something, then turn around and complain about it.. especially when you are WELL aware your creating something the company is not OK with as you create it.
Seriously dude! Its my money, i pay for a service and the device. No they can't do whatever they want. So how does canning 3G use of Sling ehhance anything? They are dictators pure and simple. They do nothing to enhance my experience by denying me what i want. If AT&T's infrastructure is too weak to support their lofty claims then that's their fault.
Lots of legal words used here but written with no legal understanding.
Maybe you should read AT&T's submission - it actually quoted Court decisions on the rights of companies to partner. (AT&T's submission was clearly written by lawyers; Apple's and Google's not so much.)
wrt 1, not exactly true; iPhone buyers agree to terms of service regarding warranties and cellular network use, so they own the iPhone but under a set of conditions if they are to use certain services. With regard to the App Store, Apple doesn't force you to use it, and if you do, you agree to more terms of service. Alternatively, one can jailbreak their iPhone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.
wrt 2, any property rights one has on the iPhone doesn't extend to the App Store. Again, one can jailbreak their phone and get their apps and repair services elsewhere.
wrt 3, odds are those "strangers" all have signed contracts with AT&T or other carriers, because its damn hard to write usable iPhone apps without owning an iPhone. (And odds are Apple has similar contracts with all of its other carrier partners.)
Again Seriously! Jaiklbreaking is all well and good if Apple isn't constantly trying to brick your iPhone with updates. Who fixes Apple software issues? You void any warranties on the phone thus have to pay ouf pocket for any hardware repairs, which is costly. If it can't be repaired then you have to pay full price for a new one. This is terrorism, plain and simple. Keep consumers passive through fear and intimidation which is why the majority of people don't jailbreak. Application developers would stand to save the fee it pays Apple for inclusion in the app store if they choose to ignore the App store and develop what they want. They stand to make more money that way and they can update things quickly. Apple and AT&T would loose control. Which why this BS has not worked with other smart phones and carriers in te past and why these same carriers are trying to follow the same model of a proprietary app store and restrict everything.
Cable companies went through something similar when they refused ISP access to their cable internet infrastructure (the highway if you will) which the FCC intervened and prevented.
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.
Please spare me the Monopolistic tactic over a phone that has 5% of the mobile market. Your head is so far up Google's rectum you're able to tickle it's tonsils.
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.
If I wanted to hear some rant, I go watch WWE on TV :P
Please spare me the Monopolistic tactic over a phone that has 5% of the mobile market. Your head is so far up Google's rectum you're able to tickle it's tonsils.
thats was funny, sorry it was..lmao
Just an observation using simple math.
You can draw your own conclusions:
Apple stated above that they get (on average) 8500 apps per week to review, and that they have approx. 40 people to review them. Apple also stated that each app is reviewed by two people.
8500 apps / 40 people = 212 apps per reviewer per week (all calculations rounded off)
Assuming a 40-hour work week (2400 minutes),
2400 minutes / 212 apps = only 11 minutes review time per app
But each app must be reviewed by two people, so it cuts that time in half to roughly 5 1/2 minutes review time per app.
And in this very brief 5 minutes of review time, can any of these reviewers actually determine everything that Apple states they check for?