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.
I agree completely! It's silly to suggest that Apple should offer a product in their store and on their servers the hurts their business. The Iphone is all about the UI. Change that and its not an Iphone. They should just make a web app since it doesn't use the protocols anyway. The only reason for it to need to be an native app is to steal your contacts. Now they have their email and phone numbers to track them and for advertising.
Think about it. Google sells nothing to the public. They have one goal. Gain access to as much customer contact information as possible. The more contact info they have, the more advertising they can sell.
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 I don't believe.
GV offers an alternative. it doesn't actually replace anything. The fear is that users will use GV INSTEAD of the other features. Which means AT&T will be out some money. The VisualVoicemail is beside the point.
Apple didn't want to come out and blame AT&T publicly, for whatever reason.
It's an AT&T issue. Apple is smokescreening. And right now it seems they have no choice in the matter.
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.
Google Voice is already available for Blackberry & Android.
I just read this letter and find it interesting that they chose to make the reason for rejection confidential when Apple didn't. They talk about their web version that is currently available and how it is limited compared to the native app. This is not the same as an Iphone web app though. The features they list can be done as a web app. Push notifications are another matter. If they want access they have to play by the rules. The feature they desire most as listed in this letter is to be in the app store. Google explains the distribution advantage of the most popular app store. The next question allows them to proclaim their better way with no approval process and completely open system. Can U say Hack me PLEASE!
Google wants to ride Apple's back while gaining access to their customers personal information. They make a point about the most popular store. The thing is, it got that way because Apple created it to work a certain way and spent a lot of money marketing it. Should Chevy have to promote Honda in their stores. NOT HAPPENING!!!
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.
Apple does not need to corner the entire cell phone market to have a monopoly. They maintain an effective monopoly on the marketing of software available for the iPhone and effectively prevent innovations that endanger their revenue stream through anti-competitive behavior. They are engaged in restraint of trade and the whole world knows it.
The problem with most of the Apple apologists on here (not accusing you of that, Mark, btw) is that they have grown up in an era where laissez faire ideology has been blared at them from birth. There is no laissez faire, never will be, every corporate abuse is accompanied by a cadre of well-paid-off legislators holding the gate open for them to the exclusion of everyone else.
Apple, with their subtle threat of bricking your phone effectively keeps all but the most technically savvy or ballsy out of the jailbreak arena. That is restraint of trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
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.
I didn't mention Google and could not care less about them. My statement applies as much to Netshare and every other app that has been shown the door by Apple because the product they are selling might interfere with Apples revenue stream. So tell me, how does it feel to be Steve Job's cockswab?
Google wants to ride Apple's back while gaining access to their customers personal information. They make a point about the most popular store. The thing is, it got that way because Apple created it to work a certain way and spent a lot of money marketing it. Should Chevy have to promote Honda in their stores. NOT HAPPENING!!!
Do you have any idea what Apple does with your information? Do you know how secure their MobileMe app is that stores all of your information? If you don't have Mobile me, do you know what Apple is doing with your contact list?
Do you know what Apple does with the GPS data it gathers on where you have been?
This can be said for ANY cell phone company. Apple has access to all of your contacts.
Does that make them evil? Apple gives you the ability to synch via iTunes your contacts with Google Mail. Why is it now being considered a bad thing when it's been around for ages?
I had a hard time finding info but it seems that Google has not consistent UI for this because it has to work for many phones. So them changing the one that actually works and really hasn't change much but continues to grow because of ease of use seems foreign to me. Most of Rims phones have hardware interfaces. Google couldn't change those, and their touch screen phones haven't been popular enough to make a difference. I wouldn't sell or offer for free a product that undermines my product or service. That would be stupid. With Rim email is their star feature, so anything to enhance their other services is welcome.
I had a hard time finding info but it seems that Google has not consistent UI for this because it has to work for many phones. So them changing the one that actually works and really hasn't change much but continues to grow because of ease of use seems foreign to me. Most of Rims phones have hardware interfaces. Google couldn't change those, and their touch screen phones haven't been popular enough to make a difference. I wouldn't sell or offer for free a product that undermines my product or service. That would be stupid. With Rim email is their star feature, so anything to enhance their other services is welcome.
RIM (as of August 17th, 2009) is the fastest growing company in the world. I think they know a little more than you do about what to offer on their phones.
Thanks to those booming sales, Research in Motion ranks No. 1 on Fortune's 2009 list of Fastest-Growing Companies, with a three-year average earnings-per-share growth of 84 percent and revenue growth of 77 percent. Even after last year's stock market meltdown, shares of RIM have a three-year annualized total return of 45 percent. Apple, which is three times the size of RIM in both sales and market value, checks in at No. 39.
Do you have any idea what Apple does with your information? Do you know how secure their MobileMe app is that stores all of your information? If you don't have Mobile me, do you know what Apple is doing with your contact list?
Do you know what Apple does with the GPS data it gathers on where you have been?
This can be said for ANY cell phone company. Apple has access to all of your contacts.
Does that make them evil? Apple gives you the ability to synch via iTunes your contacts with Google Mail. Why is it now being considered a bad thing when it's been around for ages?
1. I trust Apple with my contact information more than I do Google. They have different goals.
Apple is a producer of goods and products that use information internally to better serve me, by making better products and services. They also clearly state in the license the intent of use. I also have the option of not using moblieme with my Iphone.
Google on the other hand is a web advertising company that creates software to give away that other companies normally sell. Their only goal is to obtain information so other companies can market to you. I personally hate web ads, so I surely don't want to my information being used to give me more of it. If I thought the destruction of Google would wipe out web ads I would sign on in a minute.
2. Its not apple I would be worried about its third parties. Apple is clearly protective in these matters as apps that secretly try to access this information have be rejected. Any approved app including Apple's requires my approval to send this information out. I can use it to find my phone after agreeing that its ok.
3. Yes apple does have access to them, if I use mobileme. If not, they don't. They are on my phone and on my computer. In Palm's system they have access because they backup to their servers. If I wanted my contacts on Googles servers I could do so from my computer. It should not be required for me to use an app on my Iphone, since even the web apps can access contact information to make calls or send messages. The problem is they are not looking to just use this info for the purposes of the app. If so, why would need to copy the data to their servers. Oh yeah, they are a marketing company that writes software to give away to get consumer information for their clients.
As it's been posted by some, this looks to me like Google is using their app as a Trojan Horse (not in the PC virus sense, but in the Trojan Horse actual sense)
I'm surprised Apple didn't reject it immediately and had to add a disclaimer to their site.
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.
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.."
Response to two different questions.
They were asked if there were any contractual restrictions on apps in general, but the GV hold up is based on Google changing the user experience with is not allowed in and app they will be hosted on their servers.
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.
The web interface is not the same as the Web App they are writing. They are based on Ajax programing and just hosted online.
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).
What are you talking about? AT&T said they had nothing to do with it. Apple said AT&T had nothing to do with it. Where is the finger pointing?
1. I trust Apple with my contact information more than I do Google. They have different goals.
Apple is a producer of goods and products that use information internally to better serve me, by making better products and services. They also clearly state in the license the intent of use. I also have the option of not using moblieme with my Iphone.
Google on the other hand is a web advertising company that creates software to give away that other companies normally sell. Their only goal is to obtain information so other companies can market to you. I personally hate web ads, so I surely don't want to my information being used to give me more of it. If I thought the destruction of Google would wipe out web ads I would sign on in a minute.
2. Its not apple I would be worried about its third parties. Apple is clearly protective in these matters as apps that secretly try to access this information have be rejected. Any approved app including Apple's requires my approval to send this information out. I can use it to find my phone after agreeing that its ok.
3. Yes apple does have access to them, if I use mobileme. If not, they don't. They are on my phone and on my computer. In Palm's system they have access because they backup to their servers. If I wanted my contacts on Googles servers I could do so from my computer. It should not be required for me to use an app on my Iphone, since even the web apps can access contact information to make calls or send messages. The problem is they are not looking to just use this info for the purposes of the app. If so, why would need to copy the data to their servers. Oh yeah, they are a marketing company that writes software to give away to get consumer information for their clients.
TechCrunch has an entirely different take as well as many other sites.
Quote regarding the contacts and link to the article.
Apple: ?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. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.?
Reality: Complete fabrication, way beyond misleading. The Google Voice app can access the iPhone?s contacts database, like thousands of other iPhone apps. But the Google Voice app never syncs the contacts database to their own servers. There is no option for users to do this. However, Apple offers the ability to sync iPhone contacts with Google via iTunes. So not only is Apple?s statement untrue, but they also provide this exact feature themselves via their own service.
So how did Google answer the same question in their own separate letter to the FCC, also made publicly available today? We don?t know, because Google requested that the answer be redacted. But my guess is that the answer, which the FCC has and can compare to Apple?s response, tells a significantly different (approximately the exact opposite)
....
Last paragraph of article.
This isn?t about protecting users, it?s about controlling them. And that?s not what Apple should be about. Put the users first, Steve, and don?t lie to us. We?re not that dumb.
So, you were against apps providing 'replacement's for built in functions...yet you claim to use some...double standards time?
EDIT: also, he wasn't jumping to conclusions. The Apple letter mentions SMS as one of the features that concerned them. So you know, way to read.
I did read the letter. Apple says GoogleVoice would've *replaced* the iPhone functionality for phone, voicemail and texts, it doesn't say GV offered an *alternative* to SMS, Phone, etc.
Quote:
The 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.
Google refused to publish the details of their response. Including why their app was built export all of a user's contacts and transfer them to Teh Google's servers without notifying the user this was happening.
Quote:
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. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.
If you're so enamoured with Google, why don't you buy a Google Phone? Oh, because it doesn't exist...
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.
The iPhone doesn't have NEARLY enough cell phone marketshare to be a monopoly. Apple doesn't control AT&T's wireless network to have a monopoly vertically. AT&T's network is open to other cell phone manufacturers. Apple doesn't own a patent on all smartphones, and they don't own a patent on apps stores. Anyone can build their own phone, their own phone OS, their own app store. Anyone can negotiate their own contract with AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc. The fact that most of the implementations of cell phones by Apple's competitors are truly Teh Suck isn't Apple's fault. Google easily has the resources to build a true iPhone competitor, and yet they leverage the same crappy phones that the wireless phone manufacturers have been designing for years. There is no barrier to entry for Google to be in that market if that's what they chose to do.
I really wish some forum posters would take an undergrad business law class, instead of assuming they know what restraint of trade refers to or what a monopoly is.
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.
Bravo!
This little scuffle between Google and Apple is merely the early skirmishes between Apple's and Google's upcoming divorce and war. The FCC is just butting its head into normal business practices. The no-poaching I can understand the FCC looking at. But this App Store business between Apple and Google is just the start of Apple and Google's frenemy status changing to plain old enemy status.
How could Apple not think so? Google spends millions of dollars on Android, gives it away for free, starts a handset and telco alliance to build devices for it, and the devices are ending up to be iPhone clones!
Then they proceed to release a web browser based on Apple's own sourced and funded Webkit project while continuing to fund Mozilla.
Then they announce a new and free operating system in ChromeOS. Undoubtedly that OS will be competing with Apple devices.
I know a lot of you just want to have a bunch of features and capability for your devices, but to Apple and Google, there are overarching issues that affect the health and wealth of each other's company. Just ask Apple and IBM what happened in the 80s and 90s with regard to friend and enemy status with Microsoft.
Apple has to protect itself and if it means divorcing itself from Google, sp be it.
Apple does not need to corner the entire cell phone market to have a monopoly. They maintain an effective monopoly on the marketing of software available for the iPhone and effectively prevent innovations that endanger their revenue stream through anti-competitive behavior. They are engaged in restraint of trade and the whole world knows it.
Apple has never and still absolutely does not make an explicit or implicit agreement with an iPhone buyer that such buyer can add software to the iPhone, excepting what is already provided at purchase and what Apple will provide via future updates (implicitly over the useful life, which is accepted as 2 years) or since July 2008, through third parties via its App Store and iTunes. Buyers should have no expectation that they can add software in any other way. Apple is selling a smartphone - a phone, an iPod, a web browser, and access to its App Store/iTunes Store. It is not a PC.
This is a very different model than that used for PCs. In the PC model, it is now well accepted that the PC vendor is providing a platform (Windows, Mac OS, some form of Linux, etc) that is open to any software created for that platform. That might never have been explicit but it is well-accepted.
Given that Apple has never advertised or promised freedom (beyond iTunes/App Store) to add software to its iPhone (such as in the PC model), there is no restraint of trade relative to software for its iPhone. It is not a monopoly, but a vertically-integrated system, which is clearly allowed and supported by law.
AT&T's submittal lays out that there are four parts involved: wireless device (iPhone), operating system (iPhone OS), applications (iTunes Store), and Internet connectivity (provided by AT&T). Apple is vertically-integrating the first three by itself, and partnering with AT&T to vertically-integrate the fourth part. The following is from AT&T's submittal, footnote 12, referring to part 4 (AT&T and Apple), but it applies equally as well within Apple's own system (parts 1-3).
"See Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36, 54-55, 57-58 (1977) (“Vertical restrictions promote interbrand competition by allowing the manufacturer to achieve certain efficiencies in the distribution of his products. These ‘redeeming virtues’ are implicit in every decision sustaining vertical restrictions under the rule of reason. Economists have identified a number of ways in which manufacturers can use such restrictions to compete more effectively against other manufacturers” – such as inducing retailers to make “investment of capital and labor” or “engage in promotional activities,” as well as ensuring product quality and preventing free riding. “Such restrictions, in varying forms, are widely used in our free market economy. . . . [T]here is substantial scholarly and judicial authority supporting their economic utility. There is relatively little authority to the contrary.”). See also Richard J. Wegener, et al, Restricted Distribution 2009: Thirtysomething Sylvania and the State of Non-Price Vertical Restraints, American Law Institute – American Bar Association, SP050 ALI-ABA 43 (March 2009); William J. Kolasky, Jr., Antitrust Enforcement Guidelines for Strategic Alliances, Practicing Law Institute (July-August 1998)."
Again, if you don't like this vertically-integrated system of 3 parts or 4 parts, you are free to choose a wireless device alternative where only 2 parts are tied (device and OS) by a vendor, such as an unlocked HTC Android or Nokia Symbian or RIM Blackberry.
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?
You said the difference. YOU can sync your contacts with Google Gmail using iTunes if you choose too. In this case you picked Google mail as your email provider and are their customer the software needs to have this information to function. With Google Voice they could use the address book like the 4 apps you mentioned. They are used within the OS of the iPhone. Google has no reason move them to their server from the phone. This policy protects you from companies being able to move your personal data from the phone unknown to U.
If Apple sold an app in their store that they approved that allowed this to happen and it was found that your information was used to defraud people out of large sums of money, because they used U as a reference, or stole identities because of information you had in your phone, emails and such. You would have every right to sue the pants of them. It's not just about Google. If they let one company do it, they have to let the others do it too.
Comments
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.
I agree completely! It's silly to suggest that Apple should offer a product in their store and on their servers the hurts their business. The Iphone is all about the UI. Change that and its not an Iphone. They should just make a web app since it doesn't use the protocols anyway. The only reason for it to need to be an native app is to steal your contacts. Now they have their email and phone numbers to track them and for advertising.
Think about it. Google sells nothing to the public. They have one goal. Gain access to as much customer contact information as possible. The more contact info they have, the more advertising they can sell.
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 I don't believe.
GV offers an alternative. it doesn't actually replace anything. The fear is that users will use GV INSTEAD of the other features. Which means AT&T will be out some money. The VisualVoicemail is beside the point.
Apple didn't want to come out and blame AT&T publicly, for whatever reason.
It's an AT&T issue. Apple is smokescreening. And right now it seems they have no choice in the matter.
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.
Google Voice is already available for Blackberry & Android.
So why does RIM allow GV and not Apple?
Kind of takes the wind out of your posting.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/14...erry-are-here/
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
I just read this letter and find it interesting that they chose to make the reason for rejection confidential when Apple didn't. They talk about their web version that is currently available and how it is limited compared to the native app. This is not the same as an Iphone web app though. The features they list can be done as a web app. Push notifications are another matter. If they want access they have to play by the rules. The feature they desire most as listed in this letter is to be in the app store. Google explains the distribution advantage of the most popular app store. The next question allows them to proclaim their better way with no approval process and completely open system. Can U say Hack me PLEASE!
Google wants to ride Apple's back while gaining access to their customers personal information. They make a point about the most popular store. The thing is, it got that way because Apple created it to work a certain way and spent a lot of money marketing it. Should Chevy have to promote Honda in their stores. NOT HAPPENING!!!
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.
Apple does not need to corner the entire cell phone market to have a monopoly. They maintain an effective monopoly on the marketing of software available for the iPhone and effectively prevent innovations that endanger their revenue stream through anti-competitive behavior. They are engaged in restraint of trade and the whole world knows it.
The problem with most of the Apple apologists on here (not accusing you of that, Mark, btw) is that they have grown up in an era where laissez faire ideology has been blared at them from birth. There is no laissez faire, never will be, every corporate abuse is accompanied by a cadre of well-paid-off legislators holding the gate open for them to the exclusion of everyone else.
Apple, with their subtle threat of bricking your phone effectively keeps all but the most technically savvy or ballsy out of the jailbreak arena. That is restraint of trade.
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.
I didn't mention Google and could not care less about them. My statement applies as much to Netshare and every other app that has been shown the door by Apple because the product they are selling might interfere with Apples revenue stream. So tell me, how does it feel to be Steve Job's cockswab?
Google wants to ride Apple's back while gaining access to their customers personal information. They make a point about the most popular store. The thing is, it got that way because Apple created it to work a certain way and spent a lot of money marketing it. Should Chevy have to promote Honda in their stores. NOT HAPPENING!!!
Do you have any idea what Apple does with your information? Do you know how secure their MobileMe app is that stores all of your information? If you don't have Mobile me, do you know what Apple is doing with your contact list?
Do you know what Apple does with the GPS data it gathers on where you have been?
This can be said for ANY cell phone company. Apple has access to all of your contacts.
Does that make them evil? Apple gives you the ability to synch via iTunes your contacts with Google Mail. Why is it now being considered a bad thing when it's been around for ages?
Google Voice is already available for Blackberry & Android.
So why does RIM allow GV and not Apple?
Kind of takes the wind out of your posting.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/14...erry-are-here/
I had a hard time finding info but it seems that Google has not consistent UI for this because it has to work for many phones. So them changing the one that actually works and really hasn't change much but continues to grow because of ease of use seems foreign to me. Most of Rims phones have hardware interfaces. Google couldn't change those, and their touch screen phones haven't been popular enough to make a difference. I wouldn't sell or offer for free a product that undermines my product or service. That would be stupid. With Rim email is their star feature, so anything to enhance their other services is welcome.
I had a hard time finding info but it seems that Google has not consistent UI for this because it has to work for many phones. So them changing the one that actually works and really hasn't change much but continues to grow because of ease of use seems foreign to me. Most of Rims phones have hardware interfaces. Google couldn't change those, and their touch screen phones haven't been popular enough to make a difference. I wouldn't sell or offer for free a product that undermines my product or service. That would be stupid. With Rim email is their star feature, so anything to enhance their other services is welcome.
RIM (as of August 17th, 2009) is the fastest growing company in the world. I think they know a little more than you do about what to offer on their phones.
Quote from Article and Link
Link:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/32447065
Quote:
Thanks to those booming sales, Research in Motion ranks No. 1 on Fortune's 2009 list of Fastest-Growing Companies, with a three-year average earnings-per-share growth of 84 percent and revenue growth of 77 percent. Even after last year's stock market meltdown, shares of RIM have a three-year annualized total return of 45 percent. Apple, which is three times the size of RIM in both sales and market value, checks in at No. 39.
Do you have any idea what Apple does with your information? Do you know how secure their MobileMe app is that stores all of your information? If you don't have Mobile me, do you know what Apple is doing with your contact list?
Do you know what Apple does with the GPS data it gathers on where you have been?
This can be said for ANY cell phone company. Apple has access to all of your contacts.
Does that make them evil? Apple gives you the ability to synch via iTunes your contacts with Google Mail. Why is it now being considered a bad thing when it's been around for ages?
1. I trust Apple with my contact information more than I do Google. They have different goals.
Apple is a producer of goods and products that use information internally to better serve me, by making better products and services. They also clearly state in the license the intent of use. I also have the option of not using moblieme with my Iphone.
Google on the other hand is a web advertising company that creates software to give away that other companies normally sell. Their only goal is to obtain information so other companies can market to you. I personally hate web ads, so I surely don't want to my information being used to give me more of it. If I thought the destruction of Google would wipe out web ads I would sign on in a minute.
2. Its not apple I would be worried about its third parties. Apple is clearly protective in these matters as apps that secretly try to access this information have be rejected. Any approved app including Apple's requires my approval to send this information out. I can use it to find my phone after agreeing that its ok.
3. Yes apple does have access to them, if I use mobileme. If not, they don't. They are on my phone and on my computer. In Palm's system they have access because they backup to their servers. If I wanted my contacts on Googles servers I could do so from my computer. It should not be required for me to use an app on my Iphone, since even the web apps can access contact information to make calls or send messages. The problem is they are not looking to just use this info for the purposes of the app. If so, why would need to copy the data to their servers. Oh yeah, they are a marketing company that writes software to give away to get consumer information for their clients.
I'm surprised Apple didn't reject it immediately and had to add a disclaimer to their site.
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.
thank you!!!!!!!
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.."
Response to two different questions.
They were asked if there were any contractual restrictions on apps in general, but the GV hold up is based on Google changing the user experience with is not allowed in and app they will be hosted on their servers.
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.
The web interface is not the same as the Web App they are writing. They are based on Ajax programing and just hosted online.
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).
What are you talking about? AT&T said they had nothing to do with it. Apple said AT&T had nothing to do with it. Where is the finger pointing?
1. I trust Apple with my contact information more than I do Google. They have different goals.
Apple is a producer of goods and products that use information internally to better serve me, by making better products and services. They also clearly state in the license the intent of use. I also have the option of not using moblieme with my Iphone.
Google on the other hand is a web advertising company that creates software to give away that other companies normally sell. Their only goal is to obtain information so other companies can market to you. I personally hate web ads, so I surely don't want to my information being used to give me more of it. If I thought the destruction of Google would wipe out web ads I would sign on in a minute.
2. Its not apple I would be worried about its third parties. Apple is clearly protective in these matters as apps that secretly try to access this information have be rejected. Any approved app including Apple's requires my approval to send this information out. I can use it to find my phone after agreeing that its ok.
3. Yes apple does have access to them, if I use mobileme. If not, they don't. They are on my phone and on my computer. In Palm's system they have access because they backup to their servers. If I wanted my contacts on Googles servers I could do so from my computer. It should not be required for me to use an app on my Iphone, since even the web apps can access contact information to make calls or send messages. The problem is they are not looking to just use this info for the purposes of the app. If so, why would need to copy the data to their servers. Oh yeah, they are a marketing company that writes software to give away to get consumer information for their clients.
TechCrunch has an entirely different take as well as many other sites.
Quote regarding the contacts and link to the article.
Link
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21...t-and-the-fcc/
Quote
Apple: ?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. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.?
Reality: Complete fabrication, way beyond misleading. The Google Voice app can access the iPhone?s contacts database, like thousands of other iPhone apps. But the Google Voice app never syncs the contacts database to their own servers. There is no option for users to do this. However, Apple offers the ability to sync iPhone contacts with Google via iTunes. So not only is Apple?s statement untrue, but they also provide this exact feature themselves via their own service.
So how did Google answer the same question in their own separate letter to the FCC, also made publicly available today? We don?t know, because Google requested that the answer be redacted. But my guess is that the answer, which the FCC has and can compare to Apple?s response, tells a significantly different (approximately the exact opposite)
....
Last paragraph of article.
This isn?t about protecting users, it?s about controlling them. And that?s not what Apple should be about. Put the users first, Steve, and don?t lie to us. We?re not that dumb.
So, you were against apps providing 'replacement's for built in functions...yet you claim to use some...double standards time?
EDIT: also, he wasn't jumping to conclusions. The Apple letter mentions SMS as one of the features that concerned them. So you know, way to read.
I did read the letter. Apple says GoogleVoice would've *replaced* the iPhone functionality for phone, voicemail and texts, it doesn't say GV offered an *alternative* to SMS, Phone, etc.
The 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.
Google refused to publish the details of their response. Including why their app was built export all of a user's contacts and transfer them to Teh Google's servers without notifying the user this was happening.
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. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.
If you're so enamoured with Google, why don't you buy a Google Phone? Oh, because it doesn't exist...
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.
The iPhone doesn't have NEARLY enough cell phone marketshare to be a monopoly. Apple doesn't control AT&T's wireless network to have a monopoly vertically. AT&T's network is open to other cell phone manufacturers. Apple doesn't own a patent on all smartphones, and they don't own a patent on apps stores. Anyone can build their own phone, their own phone OS, their own app store. Anyone can negotiate their own contract with AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc. The fact that most of the implementations of cell phones by Apple's competitors are truly Teh Suck isn't Apple's fault. Google easily has the resources to build a true iPhone competitor, and yet they leverage the same crappy phones that the wireless phone manufacturers have been designing for years. There is no barrier to entry for Google to be in that market if that's what they chose to do.
I really wish some forum posters would take an undergrad business law class, instead of assuming they know what restraint of trade refers to or what a monopoly is.
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.
Bravo!
This little scuffle between Google and Apple is merely the early skirmishes between Apple's and Google's upcoming divorce and war. The FCC is just butting its head into normal business practices. The no-poaching I can understand the FCC looking at. But this App Store business between Apple and Google is just the start of Apple and Google's frenemy status changing to plain old enemy status.
How could Apple not think so? Google spends millions of dollars on Android, gives it away for free, starts a handset and telco alliance to build devices for it, and the devices are ending up to be iPhone clones!
Then they proceed to release a web browser based on Apple's own sourced and funded Webkit project while continuing to fund Mozilla.
Then they announce a new and free operating system in ChromeOS. Undoubtedly that OS will be competing with Apple devices.
I know a lot of you just want to have a bunch of features and capability for your devices, but to Apple and Google, there are overarching issues that affect the health and wealth of each other's company. Just ask Apple and IBM what happened in the 80s and 90s with regard to friend and enemy status with Microsoft.
Apple has to protect itself and if it means divorcing itself from Google, sp be it.
Apple does not need to corner the entire cell phone market to have a monopoly. They maintain an effective monopoly on the marketing of software available for the iPhone and effectively prevent innovations that endanger their revenue stream through anti-competitive behavior. They are engaged in restraint of trade and the whole world knows it.
Apple has never and still absolutely does not make an explicit or implicit agreement with an iPhone buyer that such buyer can add software to the iPhone, excepting what is already provided at purchase and what Apple will provide via future updates (implicitly over the useful life, which is accepted as 2 years) or since July 2008, through third parties via its App Store and iTunes. Buyers should have no expectation that they can add software in any other way. Apple is selling a smartphone - a phone, an iPod, a web browser, and access to its App Store/iTunes Store. It is not a PC.
This is a very different model than that used for PCs. In the PC model, it is now well accepted that the PC vendor is providing a platform (Windows, Mac OS, some form of Linux, etc) that is open to any software created for that platform. That might never have been explicit but it is well-accepted.
Given that Apple has never advertised or promised freedom (beyond iTunes/App Store) to add software to its iPhone (such as in the PC model), there is no restraint of trade relative to software for its iPhone. It is not a monopoly, but a vertically-integrated system, which is clearly allowed and supported by law.
AT&T's submittal lays out that there are four parts involved: wireless device (iPhone), operating system (iPhone OS), applications (iTunes Store), and Internet connectivity (provided by AT&T). Apple is vertically-integrating the first three by itself, and partnering with AT&T to vertically-integrate the fourth part. The following is from AT&T's submittal, footnote 12, referring to part 4 (AT&T and Apple), but it applies equally as well within Apple's own system (parts 1-3).
"See Continental T.V. v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36, 54-55, 57-58 (1977) (“Vertical restrictions promote interbrand competition by allowing the manufacturer to achieve certain efficiencies in the distribution of his products. These ‘redeeming virtues’ are implicit in every decision sustaining vertical restrictions under the rule of reason. Economists have identified a number of ways in which manufacturers can use such restrictions to compete more effectively against other manufacturers” – such as inducing retailers to make “investment of capital and labor” or “engage in promotional activities,” as well as ensuring product quality and preventing free riding. “Such restrictions, in varying forms, are widely used in our free market economy. . . . [T]here is substantial scholarly and judicial authority supporting their economic utility. There is relatively little authority to the contrary.”). See also Richard J. Wegener, et al, Restricted Distribution 2009: Thirtysomething Sylvania and the State of Non-Price Vertical Restraints, American Law Institute – American Bar Association, SP050 ALI-ABA 43 (March 2009); William J. Kolasky, Jr., Antitrust Enforcement Guidelines for Strategic Alliances, Practicing Law Institute (July-August 1998)."
Again, if you don't like this vertically-integrated system of 3 parts or 4 parts, you are free to choose a wireless device alternative where only 2 parts are tied (device and OS) by a vendor, such as an unlocked HTC Android or Nokia Symbian or RIM Blackberry.
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?
You said the difference. YOU can sync your contacts with Google Gmail using iTunes if you choose too. In this case you picked Google mail as your email provider and are their customer the software needs to have this information to function. With Google Voice they could use the address book like the 4 apps you mentioned. They are used within the OS of the iPhone. Google has no reason move them to their server from the phone. This policy protects you from companies being able to move your personal data from the phone unknown to U.
If Apple sold an app in their store that they approved that allowed this to happen and it was found that your information was used to defraud people out of large sums of money, because they used U as a reference, or stole identities because of information you had in your phone, emails and such. You would have every right to sue the pants of them. It's not just about Google. If they let one company do it, they have to let the others do it too.