I take it to make a comment like that you were on the invite only Beta testing of the App?
Otherwise, to say you don't find it impressive is purely based on what you've read. Isn't that rather shortsighted and an uninformed opinion?
Which is it?
I think he probably meant GV the service and not GV the iPhone app. Which makes sense. If you have no interest in the service then you likely have no interest in the app.
I think the probably meant GV the service and not GV the iPhone app. Which makes sense. If you have no interest in the service then you likely have no interest in the app.
That's not even implied in his comment and I'd rather here his answer.
It was purely a posting bashing all other Phone OS's other than Apple's with slam at an App (based on his previous postings) he knows little to nothing about.
This debacle over google voice on iphone has everything to do with money and nothing to do with user experience.
If anyone ever needed proof that the Mac bashers around here have no idea what they're talking about, this is it in a nutshell.
For Apple, User Experience IS about money.
Simple Marketing 101 lesson. Pay attention.
What does Apple have to sell?
-They certainly don't have network effects.
- They don't have unique hardware (note: their hardware is far, far better than MOST of the PCs being sold out there which is part of the reason why Apple has such high satisfaction scores, but there is other high quality hardware if you want to pay for it).
- They don't have a cost advantage
What they have is a vastly superior, consistent UI. That is the driving force which has created customer loyalty and which make the iPhone the fastest selling (at launch) electronic device EVER. When you have that kind of market advantage in such a competitive market, you don't let go of it. EVER. You fiercely defend your turf and do not allow anyone to interfere with it. That is essentially why the developer rules say you can't replace Apple's UI.
Arguing that 'it's only UI' indicates nothing more than your complete and utter lack of understanding of how the market works.
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.
Well, as others have remarked, unless you are involved in the development of GV for iPhone you have no way of knowing that it behaves the same as other implementations. The idea that Apple is lying to the FCC in this regard about what the GV app does on the iPhone is a bit ludicrous to say the least.
Well, as others have remarked, unless you are involved in the development of GV for iPhone you have no way of knowing that it behaves the same as other implementations. The idea that Apple is lying to the FCC in this regard about what the GV app does on the iPhone is a bit ludicrous to say the least.
NVF has already made up his mind, don't bother him with logic or facts.
Well, as others have remarked, unless you are involved in the development of GV for iPhone you have no way of knowing that it behaves the same as other implementations. The idea that Apple is lying to the FCC in this regard about what the GV app does on the iPhone is a bit ludicrous to say the least.
Then if they are not lying then they have a Terrible Vetting Process for their Apps.
Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?
Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&T’s 3G network.
Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google) was on the board at Apple at the time this app was being written. VOIP never came up in casual conversation or a board meeting? Please don't imply that either Apple/Google or AT&T are that ignorant. OK, maybe AT&T...
Edit.
Should be noted that it was not supported in the first generation but Google says the latest version of Android for developers would support full VoIP, but no developer has submitted an app.
Quote
Android was not designed to handle VOIP when the Skype app was released. After some updates to the SDK, developers now have the ability to create fully-featured VOIP apps using the new tools. Neither Skype, nor anyone else, has offered up one yet.
Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google) was on the board at Apple at the time this app was being written. VOIP never came up in casual conversation or a board meeting? Please don't imply that either Apple/Google or AT&T are that ignorant. OK, maybe AT&T...
Eric Schmidt had to excuse himself from Apple board meeting whenever the Apple board discussed on iphone matters. Eric Schmidt --- being a member of the Google board of directors --- cannot discuss Google matters with fellow Apple board members without explicit Google board approvals.
You don't understand such basic board governance rules.
Eric Schmidt had to excuse himself from Apple board meeting whenever the Apple board discussed on iphone matters. Eric Schmidt --- being a member of the Google board of directors --- cannot discuss Google matters with fellow Apple board members without explicit Google board approvals.
You don't understand such basic board governance rules.
I understand them completely that is why most deals are made outside of the board room.
Edit.
You understood what I was implying regardless of where it was discussed.
And the fact that Apple in response to an FCC investigation says they don't know GV uses the 3G network implies that they don't look very closely at their apps or they are proclaiming ingorance to the true nature of what the App is capable of. Both don't make Apple look very good in their approval process.
I understand them completely that is why most deals are made outside of the board room.
Edit.
You understood what I was implying regardless of where it was discussed.
And the fact that Apple in response to an FCC investigation says they don't know GV uses the 3G network implies that they don't look very closely at their apps or they are proclaiming ingorance to the true nature of what the App is capable of. Both don't make Apple look very good in their approval process.
Bullsh*t
You obviously don't know shit about programming or realize the consequences of committing perjury in front of the FCC.
Cut the conspiracy theory. It make one look pretty stupid complaining when Apple is silent and then more so when they respond.
If anyone ever needed proof that the Mac bashers around here have no idea what they're talking about, this is it in a nutshell.
For Apple, User Experience IS about money.
Simple Marketing 101 lesson. Pay attention.
What does Apple have to sell?
-They certainly don't have network effects.
- They don't have unique hardware (note: their hardware is far, far better than MOST of the PCs being sold out there which is part of the reason why Apple has such high satisfaction scores, but there is other high quality hardware if you want to pay for it).
- They don't have a cost advantage
What they have is a vastly superior, consistent UI. That is the driving force which has created customer loyalty and which make the iPhone the fastest selling (at launch) electronic device EVER. When you have that kind of market advantage in such a competitive market, you don't let go of it. EVER. You fiercely defend your turf and do not allow anyone to interfere with it. That is essentially why the developer rules say you can't replace Apple's UI.
Arguing that 'it's only UI' indicates nothing more than your complete and utter lack of understanding of how the market works.
You must be new to the Mac community. Apple has a great UI, but it has often been inconsistent. Not to point out an utter lack of understanding, but this post is full of them...where to start...
1) Apples rules say you can't replace Apple's UI. Now, do you mean you think they say you cannot replace, as in remove and substitute your own? Or that may not offer an alternative? Or both? To help you, there are many approved apps that provide UIs to functions that Apple offers. Dialers, SMS apps, calendars, contacts..you name it. A GV App would have 'replaced' the Apple UI in the sense that it would offer an alternative. Obviously, if it replaced actual UI elements (i.e. parts of the OS) then it would have been rejected. Apple says it was not yet rejected. Go figure. Also, Apple's own description of the 'replacing' of Apple's interface by GV makes it clear that all it does is offer an alternative. I think the chose the word 'replace' to intentionally confuse the simple.
2)The OS is very important, but the UI is only a part of that and not the most important part. Just look at how often the tweak and change the Mac OSX UI. Sometimes aesthetics are just aesthetics. Their OS is robust, scalable, secure and fully buzzword compliant, but the OS and certainly not the UI are alone in being responsible for their success, though that are a part (just a part)
Their success has mainly been due to implementation and delivery. Whether it is the OS, their apps, their acessories, the iPhone, etc, it is their tight control and obsession with perfection that has made them a success...oh and Jobs ability to sell anything. On could also argue a large factor has been their integration of hardware and software, but they are hardly unique in the aspect. On the desktop side, everyone was selling integrated units when Apple was young. Apple's was just better. On the phone side, obviously there are competitors selling integrated units. Again, Apple just does it better.
3) Apple would strongly argue, and have for years, that they do have a cost advantage. TCO, ROI, whatever, they like to project a competitive level. Btu you know better than Apple?
4) Up until a few years ago, they sold very unique hardware (PPC). Even now, with the PA Semi acquisition they have openly discussed developing custom chips, potentially for the iPhone. But again, you know better?
Sounds incredibly familiar. But, he isn't fabricating facts to make his point.
What points? According to Apple, Google replaced key (some would say core) iPhone functionality with their own. According to Google, we can't be trusted to know as they redacted their discussion of that question on the publicly released version of their response.
How NVF could know more than the rest of us is beyond me, unless he works for Google or the FCC?
At the end of the day, I don't know how any company could be expected to support Google's eternal beta apps anyway. If anything, IMO Apple could've rejected it out-of-hand on that basis alone.
But scanning your iPhone contacts info without the user's knowledge or permission and uploading that to their servers, well, I can't stress how over-the-top I find that sort of behavior. Imagine the outcry if Microsoft pulled a stunt like that. As I said probably 100 posts earlier, "Do no evil" my arse.
What points? According to Apple, Google replaced key (some would say core) iPhone functionality with their own. According to Google, we can't be trusted to know as they redacted their discussion of that question on the publicly released version of their response.
How NVF could know more than the rest of us is beyond me, unless he works for Google or the FCC?
At the end of the day, I don't know how any company could be expected to support Google's eternal beta apps anyway. If anything, IMO Apple could've rejected it out-of-hand on that basis alone.
But scanning your iPhone contacts info without the user's knowledge or permission and uploading that to their servers, well, I can't stress how over-the-top I find that sort of behavior. Imagine the outcry if Microsoft pulled a stunt like that. As I said probably 100 posts earlier, "Do no evil" my arse.
There you go making thing up again. In fact, you underlined it this time. Lying and fabricating 'facts' does not help your case. Apple did not include, anywhere in their response, that the google app would send user contacts, or anything else, without the user's knowledge or permission. You made that up and have repeatly used it in thise thread to backup your points.
So, what point,s you ask? When I say he is not making up 'facts', it was supposed to clue you into your own fabrications in this thread already having been pointed out, so stop it please. I guess I was too subtle.
As far as replacing 'core' functionality. Please, once again, read the f*cking response again. Pay attention to the context. Apple's own examples of googles 'replacement' of any iPhone functions show they meant replace, as in a user might opt to use one over the other. Yet some people think it means it removes and places it's own files/functions in place. This is not the case. It isn't that difficult.
Like I said previously, they chose their wording very carefully for people just like you.
There you go making thing up again. In fact, you underlined it this time. Lying and fabricating 'facts' does not help your case. Apple did not include, anywhere in their response, that the google app would send user contacts, or anything else, without the user's knowledge or permission. You made that up and have repeatly used it in thise thread to backup your points.
So, what point,s you ask? When I say he is not making up 'facts', it was supposed to clue you into your own fabrications in this thread already having been pointed out, so stop it please. I guess I was too subtle.
As far as replacing 'core' functionality. Please, once again, read the f*cking response again. Pay attention to the context. Apple's own examples of googles 'replacement' of any iPhone functions show they meant replace, as in a user might opt to use one over the other. Yet some people think it means it removes and places it's own files/functions in place. This is not the case. It isn't that difficult.
Like I said previously, they chose their wording very carefully for people just like you.
I always like to think that not everyone will understand everything and we need to educate more than berate people. You maybe right with your arguments concerning 'replace' word, but at the end of the day, we all have our opinions and unless we are at desk of person writing the reply or FCC representative requesting clarification, we will probably never know.
All your comments are based on opinions, since the content of the letter is factual evidence, but interpretation of the contents is opinions, since we never wrote the letter.
I do agree with your assessment, with concern to Apple words, but at the end of the day, the letter is for FCC and not the consumer.
Comments
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.
I take it to make a comment like that you were on the invite only Beta testing of the App?
Otherwise, to say you don't find it impressive is purely based on what you've read. Isn't that rather shortsighted and an uninformed opinion?
Which is it?
I take it to make a comment like that you were on the invite only Beta testing of the App?
Otherwise, to say you don't find it impressive is purely based on what you've read. Isn't that rather shortsighted and an uninformed opinion?
Which is it?
I think he probably meant GV the service and not GV the iPhone app. Which makes sense. If you have no interest in the service then you likely have no interest in the app.
I think the probably meant GV the service and not GV the iPhone app. Which makes sense. If you have no interest in the service then you likely have no interest in the app.
That's not even implied in his comment and I'd rather here his answer.
It was purely a posting bashing all other Phone OS's other than Apple's with slam at an App (based on his previous postings) he knows little to nothing about.
This debacle over google voice on iphone has everything to do with money and nothing to do with user experience.
If anyone ever needed proof that the Mac bashers around here have no idea what they're talking about, this is it in a nutshell.
For Apple, User Experience IS about money.
Simple Marketing 101 lesson. Pay attention.
What does Apple have to sell?
-They certainly don't have network effects.
- They don't have unique hardware (note: their hardware is far, far better than MOST of the PCs being sold out there which is part of the reason why Apple has such high satisfaction scores, but there is other high quality hardware if you want to pay for it).
- They don't have a cost advantage
What they have is a vastly superior, consistent UI. That is the driving force which has created customer loyalty and which make the iPhone the fastest selling (at launch) electronic device EVER. When you have that kind of market advantage in such a competitive market, you don't let go of it. EVER. You fiercely defend your turf and do not allow anyone to interfere with it. That is essentially why the developer rules say you can't replace Apple's UI.
Arguing that 'it's only UI' indicates nothing more than your complete and utter lack of understanding of how the market works.
It sounds like most supporters of Apple's decision would take anything from Apple, even severe rectal perforation and multiple venereal diseases.
Funny how Mac basher are incapable of anything more than the same old, tired ad hominem attacks.
Did it ever occur to you to debate the topic rationally as most of Apple's defenders are?
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.
Well, as others have remarked, unless you are involved in the development of GV for iPhone you have no way of knowing that it behaves the same as other implementations. The idea that Apple is lying to the FCC in this regard about what the GV app does on the iPhone is a bit ludicrous to say the least.
TechCrunch has an entirely different take as well as many other sites.
You destroyed whatever shred of credibility you still had when you quoted Arrington as an authority.
Well, as others have remarked, unless you are involved in the development of GV for iPhone you have no way of knowing that it behaves the same as other implementations. The idea that Apple is lying to the FCC in this regard about what the GV app does on the iPhone is a bit ludicrous to say the least.
NVF has already made up his mind, don't bother him with logic or facts.
Well, as others have remarked, unless you are involved in the development of GV for iPhone you have no way of knowing that it behaves the same as other implementations. The idea that Apple is lying to the FCC in this regard about what the GV app does on the iPhone is a bit ludicrous to say the least.
Then if they are not lying then they have a Terrible Vetting Process for their Apps.
FCC filing, Question & Answer to question #4.
Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?
Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&T’s 3G network.
Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google) was on the board at Apple at the time this app was being written. VOIP never came up in casual conversation or a board meeting? Please don't imply that either Apple/Google or AT&T are that ignorant. OK, maybe AT&T...
Edit.
Should be noted that it was not supported in the first generation but Google says the latest version of Android for developers would support full VoIP, but no developer has submitted an app.
Quote
Android was not designed to handle VOIP when the Skype app was released. After some updates to the SDK, developers now have the ability to create fully-featured VOIP apps using the new tools. Neither Skype, nor anyone else, has offered up one yet.
Link for quote: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...ls-apple_N.htm
Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google) was on the board at Apple at the time this app was being written. VOIP never came up in casual conversation or a board meeting? Please don't imply that either Apple/Google or AT&T are that ignorant. OK, maybe AT&T...
Eric Schmidt had to excuse himself from Apple board meeting whenever the Apple board discussed on iphone matters. Eric Schmidt --- being a member of the Google board of directors --- cannot discuss Google matters with fellow Apple board members without explicit Google board approvals.
You don't understand such basic board governance rules.
Eric Schmidt had to excuse himself from Apple board meeting whenever the Apple board discussed on iphone matters. Eric Schmidt --- being a member of the Google board of directors --- cannot discuss Google matters with fellow Apple board members without explicit Google board approvals.
You don't understand such basic board governance rules.
I understand them completely that is why most deals are made outside of the board room.
Edit.
You understood what I was implying regardless of where it was discussed.
And the fact that Apple in response to an FCC investigation says they don't know GV uses the 3G network implies that they don't look very closely at their apps or they are proclaiming ingorance to the true nature of what the App is capable of. Both don't make Apple look very good in their approval process.
I understand them completely that is why most deals are made outside of the board room.
Only when they are trying to make money together --- but right now Apple and Google have divergent interest and are competing against each other.
You don't give private confidential information to your competitor.
I understand them completely that is why most deals are made outside of the board room.
Edit.
You understood what I was implying regardless of where it was discussed.
And the fact that Apple in response to an FCC investigation says they don't know GV uses the 3G network implies that they don't look very closely at their apps or they are proclaiming ingorance to the true nature of what the App is capable of. Both don't make Apple look very good in their approval process.
Bullsh*t
You obviously don't know shit about programming or realize the consequences of committing perjury in front of the FCC.
Cut the conspiracy theory. It make one look pretty stupid complaining when Apple is silent and then more so when they respond.
Bullsh*t
You obviously don't know shit about programming or realize the consequences of committing perjury in front of the FCC.
Cut the conspiracy theory. It make one look pretty stupid complaining when Apple is silent and then more so when they respond.
You keep calling it perjury and even sought to educate your fellow members here on US law...but I don't think you really know what the word means.
Note any statements in the responses being made while sworn or under oath? Were they made to a member of congress or the judiciary while under oath?
Lying to the FCC, while not under oath or in a sworn affidavit would likely result in fines or other sanctions. It's not perjury.
If anyone ever needed proof that the Mac bashers around here have no idea what they're talking about, this is it in a nutshell.
For Apple, User Experience IS about money.
Simple Marketing 101 lesson. Pay attention.
What does Apple have to sell?
-They certainly don't have network effects.
- They don't have unique hardware (note: their hardware is far, far better than MOST of the PCs being sold out there which is part of the reason why Apple has such high satisfaction scores, but there is other high quality hardware if you want to pay for it).
- They don't have a cost advantage
What they have is a vastly superior, consistent UI. That is the driving force which has created customer loyalty and which make the iPhone the fastest selling (at launch) electronic device EVER. When you have that kind of market advantage in such a competitive market, you don't let go of it. EVER. You fiercely defend your turf and do not allow anyone to interfere with it. That is essentially why the developer rules say you can't replace Apple's UI.
Arguing that 'it's only UI' indicates nothing more than your complete and utter lack of understanding of how the market works.
You must be new to the Mac community. Apple has a great UI, but it has often been inconsistent. Not to point out an utter lack of understanding, but this post is full of them...where to start...
1) Apples rules say you can't replace Apple's UI. Now, do you mean you think they say you cannot replace, as in remove and substitute your own? Or that may not offer an alternative? Or both? To help you, there are many approved apps that provide UIs to functions that Apple offers. Dialers, SMS apps, calendars, contacts..you name it. A GV App would have 'replaced' the Apple UI in the sense that it would offer an alternative. Obviously, if it replaced actual UI elements (i.e. parts of the OS) then it would have been rejected. Apple says it was not yet rejected. Go figure. Also, Apple's own description of the 'replacing' of Apple's interface by GV makes it clear that all it does is offer an alternative. I think the chose the word 'replace' to intentionally confuse the simple.
2)The OS is very important, but the UI is only a part of that and not the most important part. Just look at how often the tweak and change the Mac OSX UI. Sometimes aesthetics are just aesthetics. Their OS is robust, scalable, secure and fully buzzword compliant, but the OS and certainly not the UI are alone in being responsible for their success, though that are a part (just a part)
Their success has mainly been due to implementation and delivery. Whether it is the OS, their apps, their acessories, the iPhone, etc, it is their tight control and obsession with perfection that has made them a success...oh and Jobs ability to sell anything. On could also argue a large factor has been their integration of hardware and software, but they are hardly unique in the aspect. On the desktop side, everyone was selling integrated units when Apple was young. Apple's was just better. On the phone side, obviously there are competitors selling integrated units. Again, Apple just does it better.
3) Apple would strongly argue, and have for years, that they do have a cost advantage. TCO, ROI, whatever, they like to project a competitive level. Btu you know better than Apple?
4) Up until a few years ago, they sold very unique hardware (PPC). Even now, with the PA Semi acquisition they have openly discussed developing custom chips, potentially for the iPhone. But again, you know better?
NVF has already made up his mind, don't bother him with logic or facts.
Sounds incredibly familiar. But, he isn't fabricating facts to make his point.
Sounds incredibly familiar. But, he isn't fabricating facts to make his point.
What points? According to Apple, Google replaced key (some would say core) iPhone functionality with their own. According to Google, we can't be trusted to know as they redacted their discussion of that question on the publicly released version of their response.
How NVF could know more than the rest of us is beyond me, unless he works for Google or the FCC?
At the end of the day, I don't know how any company could be expected to support Google's eternal beta apps anyway. If anything, IMO Apple could've rejected it out-of-hand on that basis alone.
But scanning your iPhone contacts info without the user's knowledge or permission and uploading that to their servers, well, I can't stress how over-the-top I find that sort of behavior. Imagine the outcry if Microsoft pulled a stunt like that. As I said probably 100 posts earlier, "Do no evil" my arse.
What points? According to Apple, Google replaced key (some would say core) iPhone functionality with their own. According to Google, we can't be trusted to know as they redacted their discussion of that question on the publicly released version of their response.
How NVF could know more than the rest of us is beyond me, unless he works for Google or the FCC?
At the end of the day, I don't know how any company could be expected to support Google's eternal beta apps anyway. If anything, IMO Apple could've rejected it out-of-hand on that basis alone.
But scanning your iPhone contacts info without the user's knowledge or permission and uploading that to their servers, well, I can't stress how over-the-top I find that sort of behavior. Imagine the outcry if Microsoft pulled a stunt like that. As I said probably 100 posts earlier, "Do no evil" my arse.
There you go making thing up again. In fact, you underlined it this time. Lying and fabricating 'facts' does not help your case. Apple did not include, anywhere in their response, that the google app would send user contacts, or anything else, without the user's knowledge or permission. You made that up and have repeatly used it in thise thread to backup your points.
So, what point,s you ask? When I say he is not making up 'facts', it was supposed to clue you into your own fabrications in this thread already having been pointed out, so stop it please. I guess I was too subtle.
As far as replacing 'core' functionality. Please, once again, read the f*cking response again. Pay attention to the context. Apple's own examples of googles 'replacement' of any iPhone functions show they meant replace, as in a user might opt to use one over the other. Yet some people think it means it removes and places it's own files/functions in place. This is not the case. It isn't that difficult.
Like I said previously, they chose their wording very carefully for people just like you.
There you go making thing up again. In fact, you underlined it this time. Lying and fabricating 'facts' does not help your case. Apple did not include, anywhere in their response, that the google app would send user contacts, or anything else, without the user's knowledge or permission. You made that up and have repeatly used it in thise thread to backup your points.
So, what point,s you ask? When I say he is not making up 'facts', it was supposed to clue you into your own fabrications in this thread already having been pointed out, so stop it please. I guess I was too subtle.
As far as replacing 'core' functionality. Please, once again, read the f*cking response again. Pay attention to the context. Apple's own examples of googles 'replacement' of any iPhone functions show they meant replace, as in a user might opt to use one over the other. Yet some people think it means it removes and places it's own files/functions in place. This is not the case. It isn't that difficult.
Like I said previously, they chose their wording very carefully for people just like you.
I always like to think that not everyone will understand everything and we need to educate more than berate people. You maybe right with your arguments concerning 'replace' word, but at the end of the day, we all have our opinions and unless we are at desk of person writing the reply or FCC representative requesting clarification, we will probably never know.
All your comments are based on opinions, since the content of the letter is factual evidence, but interpretation of the contents is opinions, since we never wrote the letter.
I do agree with your assessment, with concern to Apple words, but at the end of the day, the letter is for FCC and not the consumer.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...&start=10&sa=N