Do you have any source for your assertion that "dropping VVM would cost Apple money"?
Unfortunately no. Just from what I remember reading about the various recurring revenue streams the iPhone would generate for Apple when the iPhone was first introduced. Doing a quick search now turns up thousands of pages that reference the original revenue splitting deal Apple had with AT&T (now defunct apparently) and a few that mention the carrier requirement to buy and install Apple VVM servers. I can no longer find any explicit documentation that breaks down the recurring share Apple currently gets from the carriers, including how much for the VVM sub.
TechCrunch has an entirely different take as well as many other sites.
...
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.
First, Arrington is emotionally charged up against Apple given his previous iPhone experience. If that's not it, then he's just a fool. That's my conclusion based on his past positions, though I've since ignored everything he's written for about the last six months.
Second, Apple isn't so stupid that it would lie when it knows both AT&T and Google are both also responding. The Google answer is redacted because Google isn't stupid enough to make an enemy of Apple by violating its agreements and making public its contacts with Apple. And we're not so stupid to think that Apple, AT&T and Google have not spoken to each other about their responses. So, Google's response is not significantly different and definitely not the exact opposite.
Third, has anyone actually used the Google Voice iPhone app beyond those inside Google and Apple? How can Arrington speak to what the GV iPhone app does with regard to transferring contacts? As for a Google employee saying the app was "rejected", just look at what happened with the Yahoo messenger app this week to see how easily stuff can be miscommunicated.
Its apple's phone.. its apple store. They can do whatever they want with it. If they don't like your App, then suck it up and make a new one. The point of the App store is to make apps to enhance and give extra perks to the phone. Not to replace the features that make it an iphone.
Also doesnt EVERYONE who creates an App for iphone (including google) need to purchase the SDK.. which lays out the FULL service agreement of what apple requires in apps and what their restrictions are... BEFORE the software is purchased? You can't agree to something, then turn around and complain about it.. especially when you are WELL aware your creating something the company is not OK with as you create it.
Funny how people can interpret a document different. I se no reference that google violated the terms of the SDK. if they had, certainly Apple would have at least mentioned it in passing in their response, no?
Before you can accuse google of violating the terms, do you have any statement from any party involved that says they did so?
Unfortunately no. Just from what I remember reading about the various recurring revenue streams the iPhone would generate for Apple when the iPhone was first introduced. Doing a quick search now turns up thousands of pages that reference the original revenue splitting deal Apple had with AT&T (now defunct apparently) and a few that mention the carrier requirement to buy and install Apple VVM servers. I can no longer find any explicit documentation that breaks down the recurring share Apple currently gets from the carriers, including how much for the VVM sub.
For the original non-subsidized iPhone, Apple received monthly revenue from AT&T instead of the upfront subsidy. That's just about over as all those 2-year contracts expire. But I had never heard that this revenue had anything to do with Apple VVM servers.
It sounds like most supporters of Apple's decision would take anything from Apple, even severe rectal perforation and multiple venereal diseases.
No, we simply don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We recognize that Apple's business models (which just about no one else uses for computers and cell phones) has certain quality and user experience benefits, and we don't want to see it killed because then we'd all be stuck with the model used by their competitors (which to put it plainly, just suck).
So we are very particular about what we complain about and how we complain. Our approach is still very much looking out for our own best interests. But we're not so emotionally agitated or intellectually retarded to create comments like many of those from Apple haters.
It sounds like most supporters of Apple's decision would take anything from Apple, even severe rectal perforation and multiple venereal diseases.
It depends where you see value and where you don't. To them, Apple hasn't done anything so severe. Yet.
Some people keep a broader persepctive on the matter, and count the entire iPhone experience as much more than the sum of its (in certain cases imperfect) parts.
Apple has given us much, much more than anyone else has or will in the short-term at least. It seems to be a luxury to e able to complai about an app being rejected from the app store, when no one else has one and in a sitaution in which the state of other manufacturers' products is so utterly dismal in comparison to the iPhone.
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.
Please don't tell me you are one of those that read the word 'replace' and thought they meant that it actually substitutes and removes the built in functionality. Please.
To replace, can mean two things really.
1) If you replace a file on your computer, this implies the original is removed and the new one file placed in the same location. This seems to be the interpretation Apple would prefer the simple minded latch on to
2) One software package can be a 'replacement' for another, while both remain installed and independant. i.e. you can install OMNIWeb or OpenOffice on your Mac as replacements for Safari or MS Office. This does not mean you break, delete or remove Safari or Mac. I often use Office to replace iWork...but I still have iWork installed and can use it.
Apple's own example of what is 'replaced', VVM and SMS, and how they are replaced, by routing through the google servers, shows that the built in functions are not actually replaced.
-Apple states GV 'replaces' Apple VVM by routing voice mail through a separate phone number. Which is true. Nothing removed here. The user is provided with an app they can use as a alternate replacement
-Similar for SMS. SMS messages are sent to your google phone number not your iPhone phone number. So you might choose to use the GV SMS as a replacement for the built in Messages app.
Nothing is replaced, as in one removed for another. The alternative provided becomes a 'replacement' only if the users choose to use it.
Seriously, if the GoogleVoice app actually gutted the iPhone OS and replaced builtin apps and libraries with their own, the app would simply have been rejected. Outright. Apple makes it clear that it has not yet rejected the app.
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.
Bingo (except I think Apple is not as innocent here as you do).
Ah, but you must have known I'd come around at some point.
And it's true, Apple isn't as innocent, either. From what I can tell GV encroached a bit too much on Apple's own implemetaiton of mobile telephony. They don't want GV to be a gateway drug to Google mobile services (which means Google-bases mobile phones.) at least that seems to be a substantial part of Apple's decision. Both had something to lose. I think AT&T had more, however, and they had a hand in the rejection, despite Apple's claim to the contrary.
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.
read it again. Yes, it uses the word replace, but pay attention this time to the context. They actually give examples of how they are 'replaced'.
You are exactly why the choose the word 'replace' instead of 'provides an alternative'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
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.
read it again. For your benefit, I have bolded the part of you quote that you fabricated, intentionally or otherwise. Given your interpretation of the word replace, I will give you the benefit for the doubt and assume you actually think you read this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
If you're so enamoured with Google, why don't you buy a Google Phone? Oh, because it doesn't exist...
What, are we 5? I see this constantly these days on these forums. "If you don't like this or that go buy something else". That is the most immature, straight up stupid response to what are usually constructive criticisms of Apple, often criticisms from Apple fans that want their favourite company to improve in some area.
Seriously. People need to stop use that is a response or defence. It makes the person that says it look incredibly juvenile and sort of limited.
Bingo (except I think Apple is not as innocent here as you do).
I don't think Apple is protecting AT&T. They haven't in the past; they left AT&T to respond to the NetShare and SlingPlayer issues. They've left AT&T exposed with regard to MMS and tethering. So I don't think it's an AT&T or carrier issue.
No, we simply don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We recognize that Apple's business models (which just about no one else uses for computers and cell phones) has certain quality and user experience benefits, and we don't want to see it killed because then we'd all be stuck with the model used by their competitors (which to put it plainly, just suck).
So we are very particular about what we complain about and how we complain. Our approach is still very much looking out for our own best interests. But we're not so emotionally agitated or intellectually retarded to create comments like many of those from Apple haters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Apple has given us much, much more than anyone else has or will in the short-term at least. It seems to be a luxury to e able to complai about an app being rejected from the app store, when no one else has one and in a sitaution in which the state of other manufacturers' products is so utterly dismal in comparison to the iPhone.
You guys sound like battered wives. You are willing to stick with the abusive husband because you don't believe that you would be better off elsewhere or even that the latest actions "aren't so bad".
This debacle over google voice on iphone has everything to do with money and nothing to do with user experience. If the iphone user wants to use google voice, they should be able to use it and they would be better off with it. If other users don't like it (highly improbable) or don't even want to install it, then they can choose not to use it.
Apple is destroying choice. Apple is refusing to let innovation happen.
I don't think Apple is protecting AT&T. They haven't in the past; they left AT&T to respond to the NetShare and SlingPlayer issues. They've left AT&T exposed with regard to MMS and tethering. So I don't think it's an AT&T or carrier issue.
Sorry, I meant bingo that he correctly stated that the Apple response appears to be a smokescreen and in how GV provides an alternative to built in functions not actually replacing them.
I don't actually see AT&T involved in the decision on GV... no reason for It.
RIM (as of August 17th, 2009) is the fastest growing company in the world.
No, they're not.
The article you cited said that they're at the top of FORTUNE MAGAZINE's list of fastest growing companies - and even that list uses earnings as one of the parameters.
Read the magazine to see how narrow their list is. Many millions of companies are never considered in Fortune's list.
Third, has anyone actually used the Google Voice iPhone app beyond those inside Google and Apple? How can Arrington speak to what the GV iPhone app does with regard to transferring contacts? As for a Google employee saying the app was "rejected", just look at what happened with the Yahoo messenger app this week to see how easily stuff can be miscommunicated.
They have been beta testing it on an invite only basis for a while now. As of today both the Blackberry & Android apps are available or download.
You guys sound like battered wives. You are willing to stick with the abusive husband because you don't believe that you would be better off elsewhere or even that the latest actions "aren't so bad".
That's a shame.
I'm not dumping the iPhone platform over one stupid app! I don;t care about GV that much, nor do I find GV all that impressive. And really, nothing out there is comparable to the iPhone. Further, Apple's obsession with the "user experience" has done far more good than harm over the years. It's the reason Apple is alive and well today.
And your analogy - like a lot of analogies, is inapplicable to the issue being discussed.
You have plenty of choices. And really, it looks like Apple has in fact been the only one innvoatng. The iPhone itself is an example. It's not an open platform. It was never advertised as such. Your other "choices" are Windows Mobile, Android, RIM, which I'm sure are just as goo . . . . oh wait.
Yeah, why don't I just use Windows Mobile instead.
The also-rans are such a joke. And they've had two years already.
Comments
Do you have any source for your assertion that "dropping VVM would cost Apple money"?
Unfortunately no. Just from what I remember reading about the various recurring revenue streams the iPhone would generate for Apple when the iPhone was first introduced. Doing a quick search now turns up thousands of pages that reference the original revenue splitting deal Apple had with AT&T (now defunct apparently) and a few that mention the carrier requirement to buy and install Apple VVM servers. I can no longer find any explicit documentation that breaks down the recurring share Apple currently gets from the carriers, including how much for the VVM sub.
TechCrunch has an entirely different take as well as many other sites.
...
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.
First, Arrington is emotionally charged up against Apple given his previous iPhone experience. If that's not it, then he's just a fool. That's my conclusion based on his past positions, though I've since ignored everything he's written for about the last six months.
Second, Apple isn't so stupid that it would lie when it knows both AT&T and Google are both also responding. The Google answer is redacted because Google isn't stupid enough to make an enemy of Apple by violating its agreements and making public its contacts with Apple. And we're not so stupid to think that Apple, AT&T and Google have not spoken to each other about their responses. So, Google's response is not significantly different and definitely not the exact opposite.
Third, has anyone actually used the Google Voice iPhone app beyond those inside Google and Apple? How can Arrington speak to what the GV iPhone app does with regard to transferring contacts? As for a Google employee saying the app was "rejected", just look at what happened with the Yahoo messenger app this week to see how easily stuff can be miscommunicated.
Its apple's phone.. its apple store. They can do whatever they want with it. If they don't like your App, then suck it up and make a new one. The point of the App store is to make apps to enhance and give extra perks to the phone. Not to replace the features that make it an iphone.
Also doesnt EVERYONE who creates an App for iphone (including google) need to purchase the SDK.. which lays out the FULL service agreement of what apple requires in apps and what their restrictions are... BEFORE the software is purchased? You can't agree to something, then turn around and complain about it.. especially when you are WELL aware your creating something the company is not OK with as you create it.
Funny how people can interpret a document different. I se no reference that google violated the terms of the SDK. if they had, certainly Apple would have at least mentioned it in passing in their response, no?
Before you can accuse google of violating the terms, do you have any statement from any party involved that says they did so?
Unfortunately no. Just from what I remember reading about the various recurring revenue streams the iPhone would generate for Apple when the iPhone was first introduced. Doing a quick search now turns up thousands of pages that reference the original revenue splitting deal Apple had with AT&T (now defunct apparently) and a few that mention the carrier requirement to buy and install Apple VVM servers. I can no longer find any explicit documentation that breaks down the recurring share Apple currently gets from the carriers, including how much for the VVM sub.
For the original non-subsidized iPhone, Apple received monthly revenue from AT&T instead of the upfront subsidy. That's just about over as all those 2-year contracts expire. But I had never heard that this revenue had anything to do with Apple VVM servers.
It sounds like most supporters of Apple's decision would take anything from Apple, even severe rectal perforation and multiple venereal diseases.
No, we simply don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We recognize that Apple's business models (which just about no one else uses for computers and cell phones) has certain quality and user experience benefits, and we don't want to see it killed because then we'd all be stuck with the model used by their competitors (which to put it plainly, just suck).
So we are very particular about what we complain about and how we complain. Our approach is still very much looking out for our own best interests. But we're not so emotionally agitated or intellectually retarded to create comments like many of those from Apple haters.
It sounds like most supporters of Apple's decision would take anything from Apple, even severe rectal perforation and multiple venereal diseases.
It depends where you see value and where you don't. To them, Apple hasn't done anything so severe. Yet.
Some people keep a broader persepctive on the matter, and count the entire iPhone experience as much more than the sum of its (in certain cases imperfect) parts.
Apple has given us much, much more than anyone else has or will in the short-term at least. It seems to be a luxury to e able to complai about an app being rejected from the app store, when no one else has one and in a sitaution in which the state of other manufacturers' products is so utterly dismal in comparison to the iPhone.
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.
Please don't tell me you are one of those that read the word 'replace' and thought they meant that it actually substitutes and removes the built in functionality. Please.
To replace, can mean two things really.
1) If you replace a file on your computer, this implies the original is removed and the new one file placed in the same location. This seems to be the interpretation Apple would prefer the simple minded latch on to
2) One software package can be a 'replacement' for another, while both remain installed and independant. i.e. you can install OMNIWeb or OpenOffice on your Mac as replacements for Safari or MS Office. This does not mean you break, delete or remove Safari or Mac. I often use Office to replace iWork...but I still have iWork installed and can use it.
Apple's own example of what is 'replaced', VVM and SMS, and how they are replaced, by routing through the google servers, shows that the built in functions are not actually replaced.
-Apple states GV 'replaces' Apple VVM by routing voice mail through a separate phone number. Which is true. Nothing removed here. The user is provided with an app they can use as a alternate replacement
-Similar for SMS. SMS messages are sent to your google phone number not your iPhone phone number. So you might choose to use the GV SMS as a replacement for the built in Messages app.
Nothing is replaced, as in one removed for another. The alternative provided becomes a 'replacement' only if the users choose to use it.
Seriously, if the GoogleVoice app actually gutted the iPhone OS and replaced builtin apps and libraries with their own, the app would simply have been rejected. Outright. Apple makes it clear that it has not yet rejected the app.
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.
Bingo (except I think Apple is not as innocent here as you do).
Bingo
Ah, but you must have known I'd come around at some point.
And it's true, Apple isn't as innocent, either. From what I can tell GV encroached a bit too much on Apple's own implemetaiton of mobile telephony. They don't want GV to be a gateway drug to Google mobile services (which means Google-bases mobile phones.) at least that seems to be a substantial part of Apple's decision. Both had something to lose. I think AT&T had more, however, and they had a hand in the rejection, despite Apple's claim to the contrary.
It sounds like most supporters of Apple's decision would take anything from Apple, even severe rectal perforation and multiple venereal diseases.
But then we would be just like you.
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.
read it again. Yes, it uses the word replace, but pay attention this time to the context. They actually give examples of how they are 'replaced'.
You are exactly why the choose the word 'replace' instead of 'provides an alternative'.
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.
read it again. For your benefit, I have bolded the part of you quote that you fabricated, intentionally or otherwise. Given your interpretation of the word replace, I will give you the benefit for the doubt and assume you actually think you read this.
If you're so enamoured with Google, why don't you buy a Google Phone? Oh, because it doesn't exist...
What, are we 5? I see this constantly these days on these forums. "If you don't like this or that go buy something else". That is the most immature, straight up stupid response to what are usually constructive criticisms of Apple, often criticisms from Apple fans that want their favourite company to improve in some area.
Seriously. People need to stop use that is a response or defence. It makes the person that says it look incredibly juvenile and sort of limited.
Bingo (except I think Apple is not as innocent here as you do).
I don't think Apple is protecting AT&T. They haven't in the past; they left AT&T to respond to the NetShare and SlingPlayer issues. They've left AT&T exposed with regard to MMS and tethering. So I don't think it's an AT&T or carrier issue.
There are at least four sides to this story: Apple, Google, AT&T, and the truth.
Hehe, well put.
No, we simply don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We recognize that Apple's business models (which just about no one else uses for computers and cell phones) has certain quality and user experience benefits, and we don't want to see it killed because then we'd all be stuck with the model used by their competitors (which to put it plainly, just suck).
So we are very particular about what we complain about and how we complain. Our approach is still very much looking out for our own best interests. But we're not so emotionally agitated or intellectually retarded to create comments like many of those from Apple haters.
Apple has given us much, much more than anyone else has or will in the short-term at least. It seems to be a luxury to e able to complai about an app being rejected from the app store, when no one else has one and in a sitaution in which the state of other manufacturers' products is so utterly dismal in comparison to the iPhone.
You guys sound like battered wives. You are willing to stick with the abusive husband because you don't believe that you would be better off elsewhere or even that the latest actions "aren't so bad".
This debacle over google voice on iphone has everything to do with money and nothing to do with user experience. If the iphone user wants to use google voice, they should be able to use it and they would be better off with it. If other users don't like it (highly improbable) or don't even want to install it, then they can choose not to use it.
Apple is destroying choice. Apple is refusing to let innovation happen.
That's a shame.
I don't think Apple is protecting AT&T. They haven't in the past; they left AT&T to respond to the NetShare and SlingPlayer issues. They've left AT&T exposed with regard to MMS and tethering. So I don't think it's an AT&T or carrier issue.
Sorry, I meant bingo that he correctly stated that the Apple response appears to be a smokescreen and in how GV provides an alternative to built in functions not actually replacing them.
I don't actually see AT&T involved in the decision on GV... no reason for It.
RIM (as of August 17th, 2009) is the fastest growing company in the world.
No, they're not.
The article you cited said that they're at the top of FORTUNE MAGAZINE's list of fastest growing companies - and even that list uses earnings as one of the parameters.
Read the magazine to see how narrow their list is. Many millions of companies are never considered in Fortune's list.
Please don't misrepresent the facts.
Third, has anyone actually used the Google Voice iPhone app beyond those inside Google and Apple? How can Arrington speak to what the GV iPhone app does with regard to transferring contacts? As for a Google employee saying the app was "rejected", just look at what happened with the Yahoo messenger app this week to see how easily stuff can be miscommunicated.
They have been beta testing it on an invite only basis for a while now. As of today both the Blackberry & Android apps are available or download.
http://current.com/items/90756580_of...ones-photo.htm
You guys sound like battered wives. You are willing to stick with the abusive husband because you don't believe that you would be better off elsewhere or even that the latest actions "aren't so bad".
That's a shame.
I'm not dumping the iPhone platform over one stupid app! I don;t care about GV that much, nor do I find GV all that impressive. And really, nothing out there is comparable to the iPhone. Further, Apple's obsession with the "user experience" has done far more good than harm over the years. It's the reason Apple is alive and well today.
And your analogy - like a lot of analogies, is inapplicable to the issue being discussed.
You have plenty of choices. And really, it looks like Apple has in fact been the only one innvoatng. The iPhone itself is an example. It's not an open platform. It was never advertised as such. Your other "choices" are Windows Mobile, Android, RIM, which I'm sure are just as goo . . . . oh wait.
Yeah, why don't I just use Windows Mobile instead.
The also-rans are such a joke. And they've had two years already.