This is a total crock. Apple should be honest about its standards and intentions. Google is a rather important company, so the idea that 8,500 little apps need approving each week doesn't count for sh/t. Google is google. Apple isn't approving the app because they commercially don't want to approve it. And they probably don't have to. But Apple is playing a chump legal eagle move. They should reject the app and then actually claim the power, instead of trying to say it's their own "busy work schedule" or whatever that is denying the service. Apple is extremely quick when it wants to be.
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.
No. The fuss is about the principle which govern the approval or otherwise of applications. You're just backed into a corner and are now attacking the man and not the ball.
On the submission itself - it may behoove Apple to supply context, but the whole thing reads like a sales pitch.
No. The fuss is about the principle which govern the approval or otherwise of applications. You're just backed into a corner and are now attacking the man and not the ball.
On the submission itself - it may behoove Apple to supply context, but the whole thing reads like a sales pitch.
No. The fuss is about the principle which govern the approval or otherwise of applications. You're just backed into a corner and are now attacking the man and not the ball.
On the submission itself - it may behoove Apple to supply context, but the whole thing reads like a sales pitch.
I have absolutely no problem with Apple's response, especially the openness of it. Given the number of reviewers they employ (which is enough), along with the fact that only a handful of applications have been perhaps reviewed questionably (Apple has given reasons, anyway), and their whole App Store operation is pretty impressive.
Tens of thousands of apps that have been accepted. A developer's wet dream. An infrastructure that hasn't gone down, crashed, etc. And something that's dead-easy to use.
Either Google and the few others whose apps were rejected comply with Apple's requirements and regulations, or they won't make it onto the Store. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other developers had their apps accepted (there are around 65,000 apps in the store), and some of those apps offer some impressive functionality. They complied. I see no reason to get in a huff and a puff about a mere handful that were non-compliant.
Maybe you should try living in China or Iran. You'd find it most agreeable.
The rest of us meanwhile, prefer things to be rather more free and open.
It's a mobile service and a cell phone manufacturer. It's an issue over a tech feature, not basic human rights. Don't be so obtuse.
Apple regards their platform as their house. Software developers are guests, and they can't rearrange the furnishings. The iPhone is not a completely open platform. And AT&T, as a carrier, also has interests in the matter, naturally.
It's no secret that the Google application threatens the very existence for the need of something like AT&T. Allowing this would be completely absurd, that's a given.
Apple essentially went to bat for AT&T here. They decided to take the fall for them in order to cover up a very uncomfortable truth: mobile carriers are the ones halting the evolution of mobile apps/functionality. It's a money issue for AT&T. As a result, AT&T, with their weak 3G network, is limiting which apps the rest of the world and other better networked carriers can have.
Yes, AT&T bans using VoIP apps on the iPhone over their cellular network. But they allow VoIP apps on Windows Mobile to use their cellular network. So what's going on here? It's not about network congestion, it's just about money.
The terms in AT&T’s exclusive US contract to provide connections for Apple’s iPhone give them the power to veto online store applications that use AT&T to launch cheap calls through the Internet.
Further, as a result, Apple might be missing out on a huge opportunity with just a single software add-on to potentially quadruple their earnings. But we're all hamstrung by the current state of mobile carriers, at least in the US.
Apple isn't really to blame here. It's AT&T.
And as for "free and open" when it comes to tech . . . that's at best a subjective matter.
I have absolutely no problem with Apple's response, especially the openness of it.
Openness. I suppose it is open enough, but doesn't the content of it make you a little uncomfortable?
Question 1:
Answer - we didn't reject it - it's not approved. Then some ramblings about how we don't want to ruin the seamlessness of the beauty of the callingness of like iPhone. But never mind there are numerous other apps which do a similar thing.
Question 2:
Answer - straight up. about as unequivocal as this whole response gets. Difficult to cock up such a short response.
Question 3:
Answer - we don't do VOIP over wireless, and (re)'consider' apps when AT&T jump up and down. Is this to say Apple is being led a little by AT&T on the approval front? Not so much is said but it is critical to understand what is not said as much as what is.
Question 4:
Answer - we were too stupid to ask the developer whether there was a VOIP element. Srsly.
Question 5:
Answer - Can't really pick much out of it - but "undocumented application protocols"? WTF is a protocol?
Question 6:
As far as I know, in the US at least you need to contract with AT&T to buy an iPhone. As a minor, you can't really do that, so I'm beat as to why protecting the children is such a big deal.
Quote:
I see no reason to get in a huff and a puff about a mere handful that were non-compliant.
Much ado about nothing.
say for example, Apple decided to reject all Bible application to protect the children. They would be non-compliant to your reasoning. Is that ado about nothing?
I'm being a little tongue in cheek here but I still think you're missing the point.
Openness. I suppose it is open enough, but doesn't the content of it make you a little uncomfortable?
Question 1:
Answer - we didn't reject it - it's not approved. Then some ramblings about how we don't want to ruin the seamlessness of the beauty of the callingness of like iPhone. But never mind there are numerous other apps which do a similar thing.
Question 2:
Answer - straight up. about as unequivocal as this whole response gets. Difficult to cock up such a short response.
Question 3:
Answer - we don't do VOIP over wireless, and (re)'consider' apps when AT&T jump up and down. Is this to say Apple is being led a little by AT&T on the approval front? Not so much is said but it is critical to understand what is not said as much as what is.
Question 4:
Answer - we were too stupid to ask the developer whether there was a VOIP element. Srsly.
Question 5:
Answer - Can't really pick much out of it - but "undocumented application protocols"? WTF is a protocol?
Question 6:
As far as I know, in the US at least you need to contract with AT&T to buy an iPhone. As a minor, you can't really do that, so I'm beat as to why protecting the children is such a big deal.
say for example, Apple decided to reject all Bible application to protect the children. They would be non-compliant to your reasoning. Is that ado about nothing?
I'm being a little tongue in cheek here but I still think you're missing the point.
I understand your point, and there are guidelines and compliance decisions that could be interpreted as (and often are) unjust.
I did clarify my response in my last post, however. I'm essentially shifting the blame to where it seems to belong: AT&T.
A minor can buy or be given an iPod touch and download the same applications, parental controls are available for Apps like Safari but not for third party Apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly
Question 6:
As far as I know, in the US at least you need to contract with AT&T to buy an iPhone. As a minor, you can't really do that, so I'm beat as to why protecting the children is such a big deal.
As a general response.
Google voice is only available in the US and as far as I know is "Invitation Only", no-one outside the US really cares, at least 50% of iPhone buyers are unaffected by this.
If you don't like what Apple or AT&T are doing there is nothing to stop you from going elsewhere for functionality that suits your needs, hence there is no monopoly involved here.
So is this Google voice thing supported by advertising, after all that's how Google generates revenue.
The only "freedom" that American's seem interested in, is freedom to whine.
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
So you think the app store should be like Augusta or something? a club for the eleitists that Apple happens to like, and not open to its competitors?
Could you imagine the anger and action that would happen if Microsoft blocked Firefox or iTunes on windows or Google from IE? that is exactly what Apple is doing on the iphopne app store...
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!!
This would be like restricting you from calling for technical support using your iPhone, since you call in with a phone number, but then are connected via VoIP to a call center in India for your conversation.
Skype is VoIP. It would use the iPhone's cellular data connection to connect your phone to someone else, thus bypassing your AT&T minutes *and* using considerable bandwidth. It makes sense why AT&T might want to ban that use (alas). But Google Voice is a phone call, made using your AT&T minutes, not using any data bandwidth, 100% un-differentiatable from any other phone call.
This doesn't make any sense.
:d
Apple made this statement in reference to a different question concerning any contractual limits. In response to whether Google Voice used VoIP Apple did not know. The app never got that far. The problem stems from Google changing the core functions of the Iphone which has always been prohibited. Apple has every right to not allow another company to sell a product in their store that undermines their company. Can you imagine going in to Walmart and find them with a kiosk in their store where Target sells Walmart customers to come to their shop to try their experience.
I agree with Apple. If you want the Google experience get a google phone. Why should they use their resources to house applications that can harm their business. Even the free apps cost Apple something, bandwidth is not free. If they create a web app app does not include it on their servers and does not care what they do. They will even include a link to it from their website. Apple knows the Iphone is popular because of its consistent interface. Google is trying to establish their phone identity. They want to keep the interface for their product consistent with Android to push their interface to Apples customers. They also want access to the messages killing Visual Voice Mail, and copies contacts to Google servers which is prohibited by any app.
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
bruce, while I agree with you to a signficant degree, there really needs to be some sort of transparency between Apple and developers.
Yes, the iPhone is an incrediblr platform, and I'm sure we can depend on its popularity to carry it forward even if a few developers leave. But losing any developer at all due to ethics issues is a problem.
In this case, AT&T is the one to blame. Apple at this point has little choice in the matter, and I have te feling that if it were Verizon or any other US carrier, we'd see the same rejection of GV. The carriers stand to lose a great deal with GV around. This is a given. Apple was covering for AT&T here.
Apple isn't holding back innovation in the mobile app sector. The major carriers are.
A minor can buy or be given an iPod touch and download the same applications, parental controls are available for Apps like Safari but not for third party Apps.
As a general response.
Google voice is only available in the US and as far as I know is "Invitation Only", no-one outside the US really cares, at least 50% of iPhone buyers are unaffected by this.
If you don't like what Apple or AT&T are doing there is nothing to stop you from going elsewhere for functionality that suits your needs, hence there is no monopoly involved here.
So is this Google voice thing supported by advertising, after all that's how Google generates revenue.
The only "freedom" that American's seem interested in, is freedom to whine.
I would be one of the 50% who doesn't care - on vodafone. this has its own issues but I think you've missed the boat as well. It's the application approval policy at issue here not whether this particular app has any intrinsic worth.
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?
As Apple states in their sworn* testimony, "…We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and up."
Now, if you and a few others ever took the time to review Apple's iPhone Developer site and did some due diligence, e.g., reading and watching a few videos, you as many of us have, would find that the primary reason most apps are not accepted on the first go-around is due to bugs.
If you were developing an iPhone App, you would know that the SDK contains everything to help create and debug your app in virtually every step of the process. It even guides you if a problem arises. However, In discussions with other developer and seeing it personally at Apples iPhone developer events, a lot of developers are submitting apps either in haste, ignorance or simply trying to get assistance.
In support of Apple's reviewers, it only takes a few seconds to determine if an app is buggy or will crash under usage tests. Immediately the app will be rejected. It is no secret why, it is in the agreement we all accept to become a developer. The same holds true if our app uses third-party logos and proprietary materials; you must submit proof of usage from the owner. You just can't grab other peoples stuff and unilaterally use it on your own app.
Apple's guidelines are for most of us clearly stated. Particularly if you read them first. And as now being evidenced when we are apprised of the facts; it is the 'developers' who have been the primary cause of their rejections or seemingly long delays for approvals.
Apple's approval process in the most part is computer generated. It is not just some mickey mouse utility that casually peruses the application. Identifying issues, whether they be software bugs, violations to third-party usages or contravening of corporate policies re content doesn't take a millennium to flag. If anything, the speed at which the 40 reviewers have approved the 65,000 apps out of 200,000 applications and updates, does not support those who accuse Apple of draconian policies.
*For those of you who have denigrated comments by accusing Apple of lying, perhaps a little course on your judicial system is in order. To openly declare that Apple would overtly commit perjury is a testament of not only ignorance but stupidity.
However, there is the human factor. To your question, "…can any of these reviewers actually determine everything that Apple states they check for?" Of course not. That is why Google Voice has yet to be rejected at all. This one just needs more due diligence. Due diligence that Apple has the unilateral right to evoke. Just as our governments, legal systems, schools, churches, parents, etc., have under constitutional law.
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.
The bricking only happened once - and there's no proof Apple intentionally did that (since it only got bricked if you jailbroke a certain way).
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want it to be YOUR phone, then you're telling Apple to get lost - no updates (which comes with terms of service), no warranty service, no cellular service.
And lose is spelled lose. Loose is a different word with a different meaning.
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?!?
Some people are awfully dense.
Read Apple's letter. It's not about DUPLICATION of features, it's about replacement of the entire UI. Apple has spent a fortune developing a UI and (just like on the Mac), part of their marketing proposition is a clean, simple, consistent UI. Google voice replaces Apple's phone functionality with their own, losing the consistency and clarity that the iPhone is known for.
Apple is not protecting AT&T here, they''re protecting the iPhone ecosystem from becoming a free-for-all.
If you want a free-for-all, go with Android or build your own system. But criticizing Apple for doing what they always said they were going to do (maintain a consistent UI) is just plain absurd.
The item about information security is additional information unrelated to the first issue. Frankly, I LIKE the fact that Apple's terms of service include that the app developer is not allowed to steal my contact list. Why do they need it?
Once again, if you don't value your security and like the way Google does things, build your own phone system. Or write to Google and tell them to make it a web application like it is on other platforms.
So you think the app store should be like Augusta or something? a club for the eleitists that Apple happens to like, and not open to its competitors?
Could you imagine the anger and action that would happen if Microsoft blocked Firefox or iTunes on windows or Google from IE? that is exactly what Apple is doing on the iphopne app store...
Once again, the iPhone platform is a different model than the PC model. It's an iPod platform model or Gaming console/handheld platform model. There hasn't been much anger over the iPod, Wii, PS, Xbox, DS, or PSP...
If one doesn't like the model, there are alternatives now - Android for one.
As Apple states in their sworn* testimony, "?We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and up."
Now, if you and a few others ever took the time to review Apple's iPhone Developer site and did some due diligence, e.g., reading and watching a few videos, you as many of us have, would find that the primary reason most apps are not accepted on the first go-around is due to bugs.
If you were developing an iPhone App, you would know that the SDK contains everything to help create and debug your app in virtually every step of the process. It even guides you if a problem arises. However, In discussions with other developer and seeing it personally at Apples iPhone developer events, a lot of developers are submitting apps either in haste, ignorance or simply trying to get assistance.
Agree and if you read the reviews, lots of buggy apps that crash still get past the reviewers. And as a software developer, it wouldn't surprise that 99% of apps submitted have bugs.
That said, there are lots of apps that are similar to one another (i.e. series of books, or I Whack), so the reviewers probably do get to spend more than 5.5 minutes per app.
bruce, while I agree with you to a signficant degree, there really needs to be some sort of transparency between Apple and developers.
Yes, the iPhone is an incrediblr platform, and I'm sure we can depend on its popularity to carry it forward even if a few developers leave. But losing any developer at all due to ethics issues is a problem.
In this case, AT&T is the one to blame. Apple at this point has little choice in the matter, and I have te feling that if it were Verizon or any other US carrier, we'd see the same rejection of GV. The carriers stand to lose a great deal with GV around. This is a given. Apple was covering for AT&T here.
Apple isn't holding back innovation in the mobile app sector. The major carriers are.
Did you even read the letter from Apple explaining the reason for rejection. It has to do with Googles desire to make changes to Apple's core functions on the device itself and promote their own interface while deactivating features like visual voice mail which make the Iphone what it is. Any app on their servers should not be able to harm apple's business. It's like paying for someone to come in to your house and throw mud on your kitchen floor while you continue to mop it up.
Apple innovated with the Iphone and changed everything. They created a great experience that continues to hook new fans. We use the Iphone because we like how it works. Google and palm want to be able to ride on Apples work to make money for themselves and that is not going to happen. If their products and way of doing things is so great, consumers will answer by buying their products in groves, just like Apple's customers come to them.
Do you think Black Berry would allow Apple to place an Apple on their store that changed the way their phone worked, showed Apples way of doing things so next time they would just get and Iphone. They could also after a time discontinue the app forcing the user to go to them when its time to upgrade.
Comments
http://www.google.com/googlevoice/about.html
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.
No. The fuss is about the principle which govern the approval or otherwise of applications. You're just backed into a corner and are now attacking the man and not the ball.
On the submission itself - it may behoove Apple to supply context, but the whole thing reads like a sales pitch.
No. The fuss is about the principle which govern the approval or otherwise of applications. You're just backed into a corner and are now attacking the man and not the ball.
On the submission itself - it may behoove Apple to supply context, but the whole thing reads like a sales pitch.
Exactly. I don't see any sense in that.
No. The fuss is about the principle which govern the approval or otherwise of applications. You're just backed into a corner and are now attacking the man and not the ball.
On the submission itself - it may behoove Apple to supply context, but the whole thing reads like a sales pitch.
I have absolutely no problem with Apple's response, especially the openness of it. Given the number of reviewers they employ (which is enough), along with the fact that only a handful of applications have been perhaps reviewed questionably (Apple has given reasons, anyway), and their whole App Store operation is pretty impressive.
Tens of thousands of apps that have been accepted. A developer's wet dream. An infrastructure that hasn't gone down, crashed, etc. And something that's dead-easy to use.
Either Google and the few others whose apps were rejected comply with Apple's requirements and regulations, or they won't make it onto the Store. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other developers had their apps accepted (there are around 65,000 apps in the store), and some of those apps offer some impressive functionality. They complied. I see no reason to get in a huff and a puff about a mere handful that were non-compliant.
Much ado about nothing.
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
Maybe you should try living in China or Iran. You'd find it most agreeable.
The rest of us meanwhile, prefer things to be rather more free and open.
Maybe you should try living in China or Iran. You'd find it most agreeable.
The rest of us meanwhile, prefer things to be rather more free and open.
It's a mobile service and a cell phone manufacturer. It's an issue over a tech feature, not basic human rights. Don't be so obtuse.
Apple regards their platform as their house. Software developers are guests, and they can't rearrange the furnishings. The iPhone is not a completely open platform. And AT&T, as a carrier, also has interests in the matter, naturally.
It's no secret that the Google application threatens the very existence for the need of something like AT&T. Allowing this would be completely absurd, that's a given.
Apple essentially went to bat for AT&T here. They decided to take the fall for them in order to cover up a very uncomfortable truth: mobile carriers are the ones halting the evolution of mobile apps/functionality. It's a money issue for AT&T. As a result, AT&T, with their weak 3G network, is limiting which apps the rest of the world and other better networked carriers can have.
Yes, AT&T bans using VoIP apps on the iPhone over their cellular network. But they allow VoIP apps on Windows Mobile to use their cellular network. So what's going on here? It's not about network congestion, it's just about money.
The terms in AT&T’s exclusive US contract to provide connections for Apple’s iPhone give them the power to veto online store applications that use AT&T to launch cheap calls through the Internet.
Further, as a result, Apple might be missing out on a huge opportunity with just a single software add-on to potentially quadruple their earnings. But we're all hamstrung by the current state of mobile carriers, at least in the US.
Apple isn't really to blame here. It's AT&T.
And as for "free and open" when it comes to tech . . . that's at best a subjective matter.
I have absolutely no problem with Apple's response, especially the openness of it.
Openness. I suppose it is open enough, but doesn't the content of it make you a little uncomfortable?
Question 1:
Answer - we didn't reject it - it's not approved. Then some ramblings about how we don't want to ruin the seamlessness of the beauty of the callingness of like iPhone. But never mind there are numerous other apps which do a similar thing.
Question 2:
Answer - straight up. about as unequivocal as this whole response gets. Difficult to cock up such a short response.
Question 3:
Answer - we don't do VOIP over wireless, and (re)'consider' apps when AT&T jump up and down. Is this to say Apple is being led a little by AT&T on the approval front? Not so much is said but it is critical to understand what is not said as much as what is.
Question 4:
Answer - we were too stupid to ask the developer whether there was a VOIP element. Srsly.
Question 5:
Answer - Can't really pick much out of it - but "undocumented application protocols"? WTF is a protocol?
Question 6:
As far as I know, in the US at least you need to contract with AT&T to buy an iPhone. As a minor, you can't really do that, so I'm beat as to why protecting the children is such a big deal.
I see no reason to get in a huff and a puff about a mere handful that were non-compliant.
Much ado about nothing.
say for example, Apple decided to reject all Bible application to protect the children. They would be non-compliant to your reasoning. Is that ado about nothing?
I'm being a little tongue in cheek here but I still think you're missing the point.
Openness. I suppose it is open enough, but doesn't the content of it make you a little uncomfortable?
Question 1:
Answer - we didn't reject it - it's not approved. Then some ramblings about how we don't want to ruin the seamlessness of the beauty of the callingness of like iPhone. But never mind there are numerous other apps which do a similar thing.
Question 2:
Answer - straight up. about as unequivocal as this whole response gets. Difficult to cock up such a short response.
Question 3:
Answer - we don't do VOIP over wireless, and (re)'consider' apps when AT&T jump up and down. Is this to say Apple is being led a little by AT&T on the approval front? Not so much is said but it is critical to understand what is not said as much as what is.
Question 4:
Answer - we were too stupid to ask the developer whether there was a VOIP element. Srsly.
Question 5:
Answer - Can't really pick much out of it - but "undocumented application protocols"? WTF is a protocol?
Question 6:
As far as I know, in the US at least you need to contract with AT&T to buy an iPhone. As a minor, you can't really do that, so I'm beat as to why protecting the children is such a big deal.
say for example, Apple decided to reject all Bible application to protect the children. They would be non-compliant to your reasoning. Is that ado about nothing?
I'm being a little tongue in cheek here but I still think you're missing the point.
I understand your point, and there are guidelines and compliance decisions that could be interpreted as (and often are) unjust.
I did clarify my response in my last post, however. I'm essentially shifting the blame to where it seems to belong: AT&T.
Question 6:
As far as I know, in the US at least you need to contract with AT&T to buy an iPhone. As a minor, you can't really do that, so I'm beat as to why protecting the children is such a big deal.
As a general response.
Google voice is only available in the US and as far as I know is "Invitation Only", no-one outside the US really cares, at least 50% of iPhone buyers are unaffected by this.
If you don't like what Apple or AT&T are doing there is nothing to stop you from going elsewhere for functionality that suits your needs, hence there is no monopoly involved here.
So is this Google voice thing supported by advertising, after all that's how Google generates revenue.
The only "freedom" that American's seem interested in, is freedom to whine.
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
So you think the app store should be like Augusta or something? a club for the eleitists that Apple happens to like, and not open to its competitors?
Could you imagine the anger and action that would happen if Microsoft blocked Firefox or iTunes on windows or Google from IE? that is exactly what Apple is doing on the iphopne app store...
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!!
This would be like restricting you from calling for technical support using your iPhone, since you call in with a phone number, but then are connected via VoIP to a call center in India for your conversation.
Skype is VoIP. It would use the iPhone's cellular data connection to connect your phone to someone else, thus bypassing your AT&T minutes *and* using considerable bandwidth. It makes sense why AT&T might want to ban that use (alas). But Google Voice is a phone call, made using your AT&T minutes, not using any data bandwidth, 100% un-differentiatable from any other phone call.
This doesn't make any sense.
:d
Apple made this statement in reference to a different question concerning any contractual limits. In response to whether Google Voice used VoIP Apple did not know. The app never got that far. The problem stems from Google changing the core functions of the Iphone which has always been prohibited. Apple has every right to not allow another company to sell a product in their store that undermines their company. Can you imagine going in to Walmart and find them with a kiosk in their store where Target sells Walmart customers to come to their shop to try their experience.
I agree with Apple. If you want the Google experience get a google phone. Why should they use their resources to house applications that can harm their business. Even the free apps cost Apple something, bandwidth is not free. If they create a web app app does not include it on their servers and does not care what they do. They will even include a link to it from their website. Apple knows the Iphone is popular because of its consistent interface. Google is trying to establish their phone identity. They want to keep the interface for their product consistent with Android to push their interface to Apples customers. They also want access to the messages killing Visual Voice Mail, and copies contacts to Google servers which is prohibited by any app.
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
bruce, while I agree with you to a signficant degree, there really needs to be some sort of transparency between Apple and developers.
Yes, the iPhone is an incrediblr platform, and I'm sure we can depend on its popularity to carry it forward even if a few developers leave. But losing any developer at all due to ethics issues is a problem.
In this case, AT&T is the one to blame. Apple at this point has little choice in the matter, and I have te feling that if it were Verizon or any other US carrier, we'd see the same rejection of GV. The carriers stand to lose a great deal with GV around. This is a given. Apple was covering for AT&T here.
Apple isn't holding back innovation in the mobile app sector. The major carriers are.
A minor can buy or be given an iPod touch and download the same applications, parental controls are available for Apps like Safari but not for third party Apps.
As a general response.
Google voice is only available in the US and as far as I know is "Invitation Only", no-one outside the US really cares, at least 50% of iPhone buyers are unaffected by this.
If you don't like what Apple or AT&T are doing there is nothing to stop you from going elsewhere for functionality that suits your needs, hence there is no monopoly involved here.
So is this Google voice thing supported by advertising, after all that's how Google generates revenue.
The only "freedom" that American's seem interested in, is freedom to whine.
I would be one of the 50% who doesn't care - on vodafone. this has its own issues but I think you've missed the boat as well. It's the application approval policy at issue here not whether this particular app has any intrinsic worth.
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?
As Apple states in their sworn* testimony, "…We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and up."
Now, if you and a few others ever took the time to review Apple's iPhone Developer site and did some due diligence, e.g., reading and watching a few videos, you as many of us have, would find that the primary reason most apps are not accepted on the first go-around is due to bugs.
If you were developing an iPhone App, you would know that the SDK contains everything to help create and debug your app in virtually every step of the process. It even guides you if a problem arises. However, In discussions with other developer and seeing it personally at Apples iPhone developer events, a lot of developers are submitting apps either in haste, ignorance or simply trying to get assistance.
In support of Apple's reviewers, it only takes a few seconds to determine if an app is buggy or will crash under usage tests. Immediately the app will be rejected. It is no secret why, it is in the agreement we all accept to become a developer. The same holds true if our app uses third-party logos and proprietary materials; you must submit proof of usage from the owner. You just can't grab other peoples stuff and unilaterally use it on your own app.
Apple's guidelines are for most of us clearly stated. Particularly if you read them first. And as now being evidenced when we are apprised of the facts; it is the 'developers' who have been the primary cause of their rejections or seemingly long delays for approvals.
Apple's approval process in the most part is computer generated. It is not just some mickey mouse utility that casually peruses the application. Identifying issues, whether they be software bugs, violations to third-party usages or contravening of corporate policies re content doesn't take a millennium to flag. If anything, the speed at which the 40 reviewers have approved the 65,000 apps out of 200,000 applications and updates, does not support those who accuse Apple of draconian policies.
*For those of you who have denigrated comments by accusing Apple of lying, perhaps a little course on your judicial system is in order. To openly declare that Apple would overtly commit perjury is a testament of not only ignorance but stupidity.
However, there is the human factor. To your question, "…can any of these reviewers actually determine everything that Apple states they check for?" Of course not. That is why Google Voice has yet to be rejected at all. This one just needs more due diligence. Due diligence that Apple has the unilateral right to evoke. Just as our governments, legal systems, schools, churches, parents, etc., have under constitutional law.
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.
The bricking only happened once - and there's no proof Apple intentionally did that (since it only got bricked if you jailbroke a certain way).
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want it to be YOUR phone, then you're telling Apple to get lost - no updates (which comes with terms of service), no warranty service, no cellular service.
And lose is spelled lose. Loose is a different word with a different meaning.
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?!?
Some people are awfully dense.
Read Apple's letter. It's not about DUPLICATION of features, it's about replacement of the entire UI. Apple has spent a fortune developing a UI and (just like on the Mac), part of their marketing proposition is a clean, simple, consistent UI. Google voice replaces Apple's phone functionality with their own, losing the consistency and clarity that the iPhone is known for.
Apple is not protecting AT&T here, they''re protecting the iPhone ecosystem from becoming a free-for-all.
If you want a free-for-all, go with Android or build your own system. But criticizing Apple for doing what they always said they were going to do (maintain a consistent UI) is just plain absurd.
The item about information security is additional information unrelated to the first issue. Frankly, I LIKE the fact that Apple's terms of service include that the app developer is not allowed to steal my contact list. Why do they need it?
Once again, if you don't value your security and like the way Google does things, build your own phone system. Or write to Google and tell them to make it a web application like it is on other platforms.
So you think the app store should be like Augusta or something? a club for the eleitists that Apple happens to like, and not open to its competitors?
Could you imagine the anger and action that would happen if Microsoft blocked Firefox or iTunes on windows or Google from IE? that is exactly what Apple is doing on the iphopne app store...
Once again, the iPhone platform is a different model than the PC model. It's an iPod platform model or Gaming console/handheld platform model. There hasn't been much anger over the iPod, Wii, PS, Xbox, DS, or PSP...
If one doesn't like the model, there are alternatives now - Android for one.
As Apple states in their sworn* testimony, "?We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and up."
Now, if you and a few others ever took the time to review Apple's iPhone Developer site and did some due diligence, e.g., reading and watching a few videos, you as many of us have, would find that the primary reason most apps are not accepted on the first go-around is due to bugs.
If you were developing an iPhone App, you would know that the SDK contains everything to help create and debug your app in virtually every step of the process. It even guides you if a problem arises. However, In discussions with other developer and seeing it personally at Apples iPhone developer events, a lot of developers are submitting apps either in haste, ignorance or simply trying to get assistance.
Agree and if you read the reviews, lots of buggy apps that crash still get past the reviewers. And as a software developer, it wouldn't surprise that 99% of apps submitted have bugs.
That said, there are lots of apps that are similar to one another (i.e. series of books, or I Whack), so the reviewers probably do get to spend more than 5.5 minutes per app.
bruce, while I agree with you to a signficant degree, there really needs to be some sort of transparency between Apple and developers.
Yes, the iPhone is an incrediblr platform, and I'm sure we can depend on its popularity to carry it forward even if a few developers leave. But losing any developer at all due to ethics issues is a problem.
In this case, AT&T is the one to blame. Apple at this point has little choice in the matter, and I have te feling that if it were Verizon or any other US carrier, we'd see the same rejection of GV. The carriers stand to lose a great deal with GV around. This is a given. Apple was covering for AT&T here.
Apple isn't holding back innovation in the mobile app sector. The major carriers are.
Did you even read the letter from Apple explaining the reason for rejection. It has to do with Googles desire to make changes to Apple's core functions on the device itself and promote their own interface while deactivating features like visual voice mail which make the Iphone what it is. Any app on their servers should not be able to harm apple's business. It's like paying for someone to come in to your house and throw mud on your kitchen floor while you continue to mop it up.
Apple innovated with the Iphone and changed everything. They created a great experience that continues to hook new fans. We use the Iphone because we like how it works. Google and palm want to be able to ride on Apples work to make money for themselves and that is not going to happen. If their products and way of doing things is so great, consumers will answer by buying their products in groves, just like Apple's customers come to them.
Do you think Black Berry would allow Apple to place an Apple on their store that changed the way their phone worked, showed Apples way of doing things so next time they would just get and Iphone. They could also after a time discontinue the app forcing the user to go to them when its time to upgrade.