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.
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...
Well, no. I've been using Macs probably since before many posters here were born. (I used a very early Mac to write my thesis in 1985). As usual, you're relying on made up 'facts' to try to prove your point. You'd probably do a lot better if you stuck to REAL facts rather than making them up as you go along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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.
I think you're one of the simple, then. Either that or you're making things up because you don't like Apple and want to berate them every chance you get. Apple's wording is VERY clear:
"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 states to the FCC very clearly that GV replaces Apple's UI with its own. Not just the functionality, but the actual UI. You don't go around lying to the FCC.
So who should we believe - a multibillion dollar company which undoubtedly had an entire team of lawyers vet their sworn statement to make sure it was completely accurate or someone who can't even understand the difference between 'replace' and 'add'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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)
OK, so 'UI' is another term you don't understand.
The UI is not about aesthetics. It's about how things work and how the user interfaces with the computer. Overall, it clearly is the UI that drives sales.
Just one example: the OS clearly IS robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant. The xServe is quite competitive in the markets it competes in and OS X server licenses are dirt cheap compared to Windows. Why in the world haven't OS X Server and the xServe gotten any traction? Because the UI is not as relevant in servers - while all those things you cite are critical. So if it was all about being robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant, OS X Server should be dominant. It's not - because it's the UI that drives Mac sales, not the buzzword compliance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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?
Apple does have a lifetime cost advantage. However, their initial purchase price is significantly higher. How many home users do you know who consider lifetime cost? For that matter, how many businesses actually consider lifetime cost? Very few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
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?
Why in the world do you have to bring up ancient history? We're talking about Apple TODAY - not in the past (yes, PPC was at one time significantly superior to x86 in performance, but that's completely irrelevant today). As for possibly developing custom chips, you don't build a marketing plan on wild-assed speculation (or even intelligent projections - remember how badly they got burned on IBM's promise of 3 GHz G5 chips?). If they develop a chip that runs circles around Intel's chips, costs $9.95, and uses 20 mW of power, then they would have a different advantage and a different marketing plan. But today, none of those things exist, so their marketing plan must be based on reality.
You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?
Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.
You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?
Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.
Whoa there. Let's hold on a sec.
To my understanding GV did not replace Apple's interface. I should hope it didn't. If it did, then I'm all for Apple kicking that app to the curb.
It has been every GV user's contention that it was smply an alternative interface, like a lot of the dialer apps out there.
What is meant by "replace" anyway? Did GV lock the user out of the standard interface? Was the user not able to access Apple's standard interface?
I hope someone can clear this up once and for all.
All I have to say is, wow. That's balls. It really is. It's not a replacement as such. It's an app that offers an alternative to Apple's entire set of mobile telephony features. It looks like you can, in fact, bypass the iPhone's entire telephony interface, and just use GV.
It's not a replacement, but it's a broad and very far-reaching duplication of features that seem to give a different user experience than what Apple has. This is no simple dialer app. It seems like complete Google "Trojan Horse." It's as if Google duplicated a major part of the iPhone's OS and then offered that to users to use in place of Apple's original implementation. And really, it can certainly function as a "replacement." I can see why and how Apple used that term to describe it.
I'm not surprised Apple ended up rejecting this. As a user, I don't know how to feel about it, really. But I can certainly undertstand how this is unacceptable to Apple, and AT&T as well.
Well, no. I've been using Macs probably since before many posters here were born. (I used a very early Mac to write my thesis in 1985). As usual, you're relying on made up 'facts' to try to prove your point. You'd probably do a lot better if you stuck to REAL facts rather than making them up as you go along.
So, asking a question of you is stating a fact? I hope your advisor had better reading comprehension skills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I think you're one of the simple, then. Either that or you're making things up because you don't like Apple and want to berate them every chance you get. Apple's wording is VERY clear:
"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. "
Have you even read their response? Do you understand the different meanings 'replace' can have? If it actually removed anything, do you think they might have mentioned an example? Instead they gave examples of 'replacing' that simple describe providing alternatives. Please go back and read. Maybe have someone read it with you to explain the examples Apple gives and how they do not show removal but only alternatives.
I use Safari on my PC at work as a replacement for IE. I still have IE installed. Talk about simple.
Do I dislike Apple? No, they are my favourite company. I just don't blindly accept everything they do. That is the action of the simple. I have used Apple products since before there were Macs. But, damn if I am dumb enough to think they are above reproach as a company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Apple states to the FCC very clearly that GV replaces Apple's UI with its own. Not just the functionality, but the actual UI. You don't go around lying to the FCC.
So who should we believe - a multibillion dollar company which undoubtedly had an entire team of lawyers vet their sworn statement to make sure it was completely accurate or someone who can't even understand the difference between 'replace' and 'add'?
More fabrications. Did the responses from any of the companies mention that it was a sworn response? Here is a tip...no. Did I say they lied? Again, no. They used words that were open to misinterpretation by some. You are an example. Read it again, and it is very clear...hopefully
But then, should I expect you understand that words can imply different meanings? Perhaps I expect too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK, so 'UI' is another term you don't understand.
The UI is not about aesthetics. It's about how things work and how the user interfaces with the computer. Overall, it clearly is the UI that drives sales.
Just one example: the OS clearly IS robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant. The xServe is quite competitive in the markets it competes in and OS X server licenses are dirt cheap compared to Windows. Why in the world haven't OS X Server and the xServe gotten any traction? Because the UI is not as relevant in servers - while all those things you cite are critical. So if it was all about being robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant, OS X Server should be dominant. It's not - because it's the UI that drives Mac sales, not the buzzword compliance.
Umm...Maybe because aesthetics are not as important in the server market? The UI is important, as I said. You could even call it their crown jewel. It is not the only reason, as you said it was. Again, talk about simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Apple does have a lifetime cost advantage. However, their initial purchase price is significantly higher. How many home users do you know who consider lifetime cost? For that matter, how many businesses actually consider lifetime cost? Very few.
First you clearly say Apple has no cost advantage. Now you admit they do. Please make up your mind. Oh, and many consumers are price conscious of the long term costs of their purchases...the intelligent ones anyway. Same with businesses. Especially businesses. If they weren't, companies like Gartner and Forrester would go out of business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why in the world do you have to bring up ancient history? We're talking about Apple TODAY - not in the past (yes, PPC was at one time significantly superior to x86 in performance, but that's completely irrelevant today). As for possibly developing custom chips, you don't build a marketing plan on wild-assed speculation (or even intelligent projections - remember how badly they got burned on IBM's promise of 3 GHz G5 chips?). If they develop a chip that runs circles around Intel's chips, costs $9.95, and uses 20 mW of power, then they would have a different advantage and a different marketing plan. But today, none of those things exist, so their marketing plan must be based on reality.
A few years ago is not ancient history. You said Apple has no unique hardware. But, in 2006, prior to their Intel based systems and before the iPhone, they were doing quite well...you know, with unique hardware. The switch to Intel allowed them grow even more. But, they do use commodity hardware these days, hence it being the last point in my response to you, as it was the least relevant.
You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?
Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.
No, like when you say the responses were sworn statements. Or when John B says the Apple response accuses google of collecting users contacts without user knowledge or permission. Those are lies.
When you fail to understand the context of the word 'Replace', even with clear examples given by Apple and other trying to help you through your confusion, that isn't lying, it is just frustrating.
If users use the app and therefore the alternative UI, then they are using a replacement UI. You get that right? Please say you are able to finally understand that.
All I have to say is, wow. That's balls. It really is. It's not a replacement as such. It's an app that offers an alternative to Apple's entire set of mobile telephony features. It looks like you can, in fact, bypass the iPhone's entire telephony interface, and just use GV.
It's not a replacement, but it's a broad and very far-reaching duplication of features that seem to give a different user experience than what Apple has. This is no simple dialer app. It seems like complete Google "Trojan Horse." It's as if Google duplicated a major part of the iPhone's OS and then offered that to users to use in place of Apple's original implementation. And really, it can certainly function as a "replacement." I can see why and how Apple used that term to describe it.
I'm not surprised Apple ended up rejecting this. As a user, I don't know how to feel about it, really. But I can certainly undertstand how this is unacceptable to Apple, and AT&T as well.
That was a demo video of GV Mobile, which is not the official GV app from Google. That was a third party app and was approved for sale by apple.
Actually, it is a good example though. Yes, it offers an alternative to Apple's dialer and other interfaces. It doesn't replace, as in remove, anything. It replaces, only if the users chooses to use it instead of the built in functions. But the built in functions remain.
To my understanding GV did not replace Apple's interface. I should hope it didn't. If it did, then I'm all for Apple kicking that app to the curb.
It has been every GV user's contention that it was smply an alternative interface, like a lot of the dialer apps out there.
What is meant by "replace" anyway? Did GV lock the user out of the standard interface? Was the user not able to access Apple's standard interface?
I hope someone can clear this up once and for all.
My impression is a lot like yours, the word used doesn't really seem to fit the usual use of the word, but is probably still a valid use.
I think it depends on the intention behind the word replace. I'm pretty sure the regular phone app is still there, but the GV app can be used such that the regular phone app isn't necessary to those that want to use GV.
It would seem to me that Apple should have enough software and equipment to know whether or not this GV app is trying to be a VOIP app, for them to say they don't know seems to be a diversionary tactic. Every report I've seen suggests that GV isn't doing VOIP to a phone, that it's still using regular air time.
That was a demo video of GV Mobile, which is not the official GV app from Google. That was a third party app and was approved for sale by apple.
Actually, it is a good example though. Yes, it offers an alternative to Apple's dialer and other interfaces. It doesn't replace, as in remove, anything. It replaces, only if the users chooses to use it instead of the built in functions. But the built in functions remain.
Is there a vid available of the full app? I'd love to watch it.
Unfortunately, Apple is not the friendly guy next store that everyone seems to think they are. They care about their customers, but they are not prepared to join the fight against unreasonable data charges. As a partner of AT&T, with business deals that will continue long after the exclusivity ends, Apple is not about to start enabling the side-stepping of insanely high AT&T service charges. Even if the iPhone is available on Verizon next year(s), the usage charges will be similarly insane.
You're not going to see Apple approve applications that allow people to communicate WIDELY without using the pay-per-use features of the iPhone, such as SMS and Calling. Its just not going to happen, for as long as Apple can manage it. They need to have to pull with their carrier partners so they can go about their own schedule ( unlike any other mobile manufacturer in the world ), and they are not going to piss anyone off by enabling loop holes like Google Voice.
Unfortunately, Apple is not the friendly guy next store that everyone seems to think they are. They care about their customers, but they are not prepared to join the fight against unreasonable data charges. As a partner of AT&T, with business deals that will continue long after the exclusivity ends, Apple is not about to start enabling the side-stepping of insanely high AT&T service charges. Even if the iPhone is available on Verizon next year(s), the usage charges will be similarly insane.
You're not going to see Apple approve applications that allow people to communicate WIDELY without using the pay-per-use features of the iPhone, such as SMS and Calling. Its just not going to happen, for as long as Apple can manage it. They need to have to pull with their carrier partners so they can go about their own schedule ( unlike any other mobile manufacturer in the world ), and they are not going to piss anyone off by enabling loop holes like Google Voice.
Guess again.
This is a sensible post. It about sums up my thoughts on the matter.
You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?
Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.
wtf are you talking about? No developer has access to replacing Apple's UI. That's called a hack.
It doesn't matter if the GV app UI is giant dolphin whose tail you spin to make a call. Point is, it makes calls.
Is there a vid available of the full app? I'd love to watch it.
I doubt it, it was a closed beta.
Anyway, wanted to add to my previous response to you comments about the GV Mobile app (and by extension, the actual Google GV app).
Yes, they can act as replacements for most/all of the telephony/messaging features built into the iPhone OS. But they only thing you can accuse google of in this case is doing it all in one place. Even Apple doesn't do this, and requires two apps (phone and messages).
For almost all (maybe all) of the individual features that the GV app duplicates, there are individual apps approved that duplicate/replace/offer an alternative. But, none of them consolidate them al into a single interface. GV App does. So is that the threat? That Google did what others have done, but did it better? So well, that users might opt to use GV as a full replacement for the Apple functions?
I think so and is what I have been saying since the app was first rejected ( ok, not formally rejected but put into approval limbo). I would suggest to Apple, don't be afraid of GV. Beat them. Improve upon what you have and beat them. Of course, the real trojan horse is that the GV service (not the app) offer a lot for free that Apple will never be willing to offer for free (nor do I think the should) . But free is hard to beat so better to ban/delay the app?
Unfortunately, Apple is not the friendly guy next store that everyone seems to think they are. They care about their customers, but they are not prepared to join the fight against unreasonable data charges. As a partner of AT&T, with business deals that will continue long after the exclusivity ends, Apple is not about to start enabling the side-stepping of insanely high AT&T service charges. Even if the iPhone is available on Verizon next year(s), the usage charges will be similarly insane.
You're not going to see Apple approve applications that allow people to communicate WIDELY without using the pay-per-use features of the iPhone, such as SMS and Calling. Its just not going to happen, for as long as Apple can manage it. They need to have to pull with their carrier partners so they can go about their own schedule ( unlike any other mobile manufacturer in the world ), and they are not going to piss anyone off by enabling loop holes like Google Voice.
Guess again.
It would allow free SMS and therefore by pass AT&T paid service, but there are other apps that allow exactly this.
It doesn't bypass (unless they were gong to include VoIP..maybe) the AT&T calling. Your calls still go over AT&T's voice lines and therefore you are still subject to whatever rate or fees they charge your for these calls in and or out. You do avoid there long distance rates, but you can use calling cards or alternative long distance providers for this already.
I do think you are right, it is about not allowing users to use for free what they can be charged for. I think only that you are wrong is what services are threatened. Apple gave two examples themselves..SMS and VVM. GV, if done well, would allow users to completely replace the built in functions for these two services. In countries outside of the US, when GV is available, it would allow users to drop these options and use the GV service for free.
My impression is a lot like yours, the word used doesn't really seem to fit the usual use of the word, but is probably still a valid use.
I think it depends on the intention behind the word replace. I'm pretty sure the regular phone app is still there, but the GV app can be used such that the regular phone app isn't necessary to those that want to use GV.
It would seem to me that Apple should have enough software and equipment to know whether or not this GV app is trying to be a VOIP app, for them to say they don't know seems to be a diversionary tactic. Every report I've seen suggests that GV isn't doing VOIP to a phone, that it's still using regular air time.
The wording is interesting, but it seems valid to me as well.
Again, I'm not sure how to feel about it. Google seems to be infringing here in some way. At least if I were Apple that's certainly how I'd view it. It's an effort to duplicate Apple's entire telephony interface and functionality - but according to Google's standards, and it's cleverly offered as an app, as a "choice." Choice is fine, but this "alternative" can function as a complete replacement, which renders a key part of the iPhone OS completely irrelevant. It isn't like duplicating Apple's Voice Memo app or whatnot. This is a huge duplication, and it can be viewed as Google strong-arming its way onto the iPhone. It smacks of some kind of infringement, though I'm not sure what.
What's interesting, as I've said, is that the loophole Google used here is to offer it as an app. As a choice. Simply tap on it and boom, alternate reality. Sneaky, sneaky. Apple seems to want to try to catch them them at their own game, but the word "replacement" seems to be something that can be interpreted in more than one way.
Either way, I can certainly understand why Apple (notwithstanding how this affects AT&T) has an issue with this.
The wording is interesting, but it seems valid to me as well.
Again, I'm not sure how to feel about it. Google seems to be infringing here in some way. At least if I were Apple that's certainly how I'd view it. It's an effort to duplicate Apple's entire telephony interface and functionality - but according to Google's standards, and it's cleverly offered as an app, as a "choice." Choice is fine, but this "alternative" can function as a complete replacement, which renders a key part of the iPhone OS completely irrelevant. It isn't like duplicating Apple's Voice Memo app or whatnot. This is a huge duplication, and it can be viewed as Google strong-arming its way onto the iPhone. It smacks of some kind of infringement, though I'm not sure what.
What's interesting, as I've said, is that the loophole Google used here is to offer it as an app. As a choice. Simply tap on it and boom, alternate reality. Sneaky, sneaky. Apple seems to want to try to catch them them at their own game, but the word "replacement" seems to be something that can be interpreted in more than one way.
Either way, I can certainly understand why Apple (notwithstanding how this affects AT&T) has an issue with this.
And yet, for all of that, Apple is encouraging them to do it as a web app, which will still duplicate those same functions. Maybe not as nicely, but it should do the job.
The web app could function as just as full a replacement, so why no problem there? Maybe it would be limited compared to the native app in some way. Certainly, the two examples Apple gave of replaced functionality, SMS and VVM, would benefit from being native, if only because of Push, which a web app wouldn't have.
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.
Sorry, I can see clearly everyday what is happening. I use a work-provided Windows and Blackberry device every weekday, alongside my Mac and iPhone.
I think you're wrong in exactly the same way that bloggers and tech nerds went ape-shit when Apple didn't allow apps back in 2007, though it was clear to me at the time that Apple was still working the SDK. (Altho the idiotic thing is they really think their complaining caused Apple to release the SDK. Ha Ha.)
Now, it's just as clear to me that Apple is working on fixing/clarifying something internal/fundamental to the iPhone that is impacted by the way the GV app works. There's a strategic decision to be made, and that takes time as Apple sorts out their choices. And it may be that the end result is no GV App because Apple will provide some other way to get there. But it may also be that Apple allows GV after it fixes some underlying APIs so users can set parameters so that its Phone, Messages, and Contacts Apps work in a better and more integrated way with GV.
BTW, the Pre's across-the-device local data integration is one place to look for a clue as to what is needed. Right now, Apple only provides that somewhat in its search function.
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.
Tell that to Martha Stewart. Who cares if it's called "perjury" or "lying to investigators and obstruction of justice" when you are sitting in a jail cell. One of the charges against Stewart included the assertion that public statements she made (to no one in particular) declaring her innocence were part of a conspiracy to mislead investors.
False statements don't have to be "sworn", "under oath". or made to particular officials to get you into serious legal trouble.
Comments
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.
No, he stated 'fact' not opinion. When
that 'fact' is made up, it is called a lie.
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...
Well, no. I've been using Macs probably since before many posters here were born. (I used a very early Mac to write my thesis in 1985). As usual, you're relying on made up 'facts' to try to prove your point. You'd probably do a lot better if you stuck to REAL facts rather than making them up as you go along.
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.
I think you're one of the simple, then. Either that or you're making things up because you don't like Apple and want to berate them every chance you get. Apple's wording is VERY clear:
"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 states to the FCC very clearly that GV replaces Apple's UI with its own. Not just the functionality, but the actual UI. You don't go around lying to the FCC.
So who should we believe - a multibillion dollar company which undoubtedly had an entire team of lawyers vet their sworn statement to make sure it was completely accurate or someone who can't even understand the difference between 'replace' and 'add'?
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)
OK, so 'UI' is another term you don't understand.
The UI is not about aesthetics. It's about how things work and how the user interfaces with the computer. Overall, it clearly is the UI that drives sales.
Just one example: the OS clearly IS robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant. The xServe is quite competitive in the markets it competes in and OS X server licenses are dirt cheap compared to Windows. Why in the world haven't OS X Server and the xServe gotten any traction? Because the UI is not as relevant in servers - while all those things you cite are critical. So if it was all about being robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant, OS X Server should be dominant. It's not - because it's the UI that drives Mac sales, not the buzzword compliance.
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?
Apple does have a lifetime cost advantage. However, their initial purchase price is significantly higher. How many home users do you know who consider lifetime cost? For that matter, how many businesses actually consider lifetime cost? Very few.
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?
Why in the world do you have to bring up ancient history? We're talking about Apple TODAY - not in the past (yes, PPC was at one time significantly superior to x86 in performance, but that's completely irrelevant today). As for possibly developing custom chips, you don't build a marketing plan on wild-assed speculation (or even intelligent projections - remember how badly they got burned on IBM's promise of 3 GHz G5 chips?). If they develop a chip that runs circles around Intel's chips, costs $9.95, and uses 20 mW of power, then they would have a different advantage and a different marketing plan. But today, none of those things exist, so their marketing plan must be based on reality.
No, he stated 'fact' not opinion. When
that 'fact' is made up, it is called a lie.
You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?
Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.
You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?
Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.
Whoa there. Let's hold on a sec.
To my understanding GV did not replace Apple's interface. I should hope it didn't. If it did, then I'm all for Apple kicking that app to the curb.
It has been every GV user's contention that it was smply an alternative interface, like a lot of the dialer apps out there.
What is meant by "replace" anyway? Did GV lock the user out of the standard interface? Was the user not able to access Apple's standard interface?
I hope someone can clear this up once and for all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ilvf..._embedded#t=86
All I have to say is, wow. That's balls. It really is. It's not a replacement as such. It's an app that offers an alternative to Apple's entire set of mobile telephony features. It looks like you can, in fact, bypass the iPhone's entire telephony interface, and just use GV.
It's not a replacement, but it's a broad and very far-reaching duplication of features that seem to give a different user experience than what Apple has. This is no simple dialer app. It seems like complete Google "Trojan Horse." It's as if Google duplicated a major part of the iPhone's OS and then offered that to users to use in place of Apple's original implementation. And really, it can certainly function as a "replacement." I can see why and how Apple used that term to describe it.
I'm not surprised Apple ended up rejecting this. As a user, I don't know how to feel about it, really. But I can certainly undertstand how this is unacceptable to Apple, and AT&T as well.
Well, no. I've been using Macs probably since before many posters here were born. (I used a very early Mac to write my thesis in 1985). As usual, you're relying on made up 'facts' to try to prove your point. You'd probably do a lot better if you stuck to REAL facts rather than making them up as you go along.
So, asking a question of you is stating a fact? I hope your advisor had better reading comprehension skills.
I think you're one of the simple, then. Either that or you're making things up because you don't like Apple and want to berate them every chance you get. Apple's wording is VERY clear:
"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. "
Have you even read their response? Do you understand the different meanings 'replace' can have? If it actually removed anything, do you think they might have mentioned an example? Instead they gave examples of 'replacing' that simple describe providing alternatives. Please go back and read. Maybe have someone read it with you to explain the examples Apple gives and how they do not show removal but only alternatives.
I use Safari on my PC at work as a replacement for IE. I still have IE installed. Talk about simple.
Do I dislike Apple? No, they are my favourite company. I just don't blindly accept everything they do. That is the action of the simple. I have used Apple products since before there were Macs. But, damn if I am dumb enough to think they are above reproach as a company.
Apple states to the FCC very clearly that GV replaces Apple's UI with its own. Not just the functionality, but the actual UI. You don't go around lying to the FCC.
So who should we believe - a multibillion dollar company which undoubtedly had an entire team of lawyers vet their sworn statement to make sure it was completely accurate or someone who can't even understand the difference between 'replace' and 'add'?
More fabrications. Did the responses from any of the companies mention that it was a sworn response? Here is a tip...no. Did I say they lied? Again, no. They used words that were open to misinterpretation by some. You are an example. Read it again, and it is very clear...hopefully
But then, should I expect you understand that words can imply different meanings? Perhaps I expect too much.
OK, so 'UI' is another term you don't understand.
The UI is not about aesthetics. It's about how things work and how the user interfaces with the computer. Overall, it clearly is the UI that drives sales.
Just one example: the OS clearly IS robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant. The xServe is quite competitive in the markets it competes in and OS X server licenses are dirt cheap compared to Windows. Why in the world haven't OS X Server and the xServe gotten any traction? Because the UI is not as relevant in servers - while all those things you cite are critical. So if it was all about being robust, scalable, secure, and buzzword compliant, OS X Server should be dominant. It's not - because it's the UI that drives Mac sales, not the buzzword compliance.
Umm...Maybe because aesthetics are not as important in the server market? The UI is important, as I said. You could even call it their crown jewel. It is not the only reason, as you said it was. Again, talk about simple.
Apple does have a lifetime cost advantage. However, their initial purchase price is significantly higher. How many home users do you know who consider lifetime cost? For that matter, how many businesses actually consider lifetime cost? Very few.
First you clearly say Apple has no cost advantage. Now you admit they do. Please make up your mind. Oh, and many consumers are price conscious of the long term costs of their purchases...the intelligent ones anyway. Same with businesses. Especially businesses. If they weren't, companies like Gartner and Forrester would go out of business.
Why in the world do you have to bring up ancient history? We're talking about Apple TODAY - not in the past (yes, PPC was at one time significantly superior to x86 in performance, but that's completely irrelevant today). As for possibly developing custom chips, you don't build a marketing plan on wild-assed speculation (or even intelligent projections - remember how badly they got burned on IBM's promise of 3 GHz G5 chips?). If they develop a chip that runs circles around Intel's chips, costs $9.95, and uses 20 mW of power, then they would have a different advantage and a different marketing plan. But today, none of those things exist, so their marketing plan must be based on reality.
A few years ago is not ancient history. You said Apple has no unique hardware. But, in 2006, prior to their Intel based systems and before the iPhone, they were doing quite well...you know, with unique hardware. The switch to Intel allowed them grow even more. But, they do use commodity hardware these days, hence it being the last point in my response to you, as it was the least relevant.
You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?
Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.
No, like when you say the responses were sworn statements. Or when John B says the Apple response accuses google of collecting users contacts without user knowledge or permission. Those are lies.
When you fail to understand the context of the word 'Replace', even with clear examples given by Apple and other trying to help you through your confusion, that isn't lying, it is just frustrating.
If users use the app and therefore the alternative UI, then they are using a replacement UI. You get that right? Please say you are able to finally understand that.
Alright, I watched the demo vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ilvf..._embedded#t=86
All I have to say is, wow. That's balls. It really is. It's not a replacement as such. It's an app that offers an alternative to Apple's entire set of mobile telephony features. It looks like you can, in fact, bypass the iPhone's entire telephony interface, and just use GV.
It's not a replacement, but it's a broad and very far-reaching duplication of features that seem to give a different user experience than what Apple has. This is no simple dialer app. It seems like complete Google "Trojan Horse." It's as if Google duplicated a major part of the iPhone's OS and then offered that to users to use in place of Apple's original implementation. And really, it can certainly function as a "replacement." I can see why and how Apple used that term to describe it.
I'm not surprised Apple ended up rejecting this. As a user, I don't know how to feel about it, really. But I can certainly undertstand how this is unacceptable to Apple, and AT&T as well.
That was a demo video of GV Mobile, which is not the official GV app from Google. That was a third party app and was approved for sale by apple.
Actually, it is a good example though. Yes, it offers an alternative to Apple's dialer and other interfaces. It doesn't replace, as in remove, anything. It replaces, only if the users chooses to use it instead of the built in functions. But the built in functions remain.
Whoa there. Let's hold on a sec.
To my understanding GV did not replace Apple's interface. I should hope it didn't. If it did, then I'm all for Apple kicking that app to the curb.
It has been every GV user's contention that it was smply an alternative interface, like a lot of the dialer apps out there.
What is meant by "replace" anyway? Did GV lock the user out of the standard interface? Was the user not able to access Apple's standard interface?
I hope someone can clear this up once and for all.
My impression is a lot like yours, the word used doesn't really seem to fit the usual use of the word, but is probably still a valid use.
I think it depends on the intention behind the word replace. I'm pretty sure the regular phone app is still there, but the GV app can be used such that the regular phone app isn't necessary to those that want to use GV.
It would seem to me that Apple should have enough software and equipment to know whether or not this GV app is trying to be a VOIP app, for them to say they don't know seems to be a diversionary tactic. Every report I've seen suggests that GV isn't doing VOIP to a phone, that it's still using regular air time.
That was a demo video of GV Mobile, which is not the official GV app from Google. That was a third party app and was approved for sale by apple.
Actually, it is a good example though. Yes, it offers an alternative to Apple's dialer and other interfaces. It doesn't replace, as in remove, anything. It replaces, only if the users chooses to use it instead of the built in functions. But the built in functions remain.
Is there a vid available of the full app? I'd love to watch it.
You're not going to see Apple approve applications that allow people to communicate WIDELY without using the pay-per-use features of the iPhone, such as SMS and Calling. Its just not going to happen, for as long as Apple can manage it. They need to have to pull with their carrier partners so they can go about their own schedule ( unlike any other mobile manufacturer in the world ), and they are not going to piss anyone off by enabling loop holes like Google Voice.
Guess again.
Unfortunately, Apple is not the friendly guy next store that everyone seems to think they are. They care about their customers, but they are not prepared to join the fight against unreasonable data charges. As a partner of AT&T, with business deals that will continue long after the exclusivity ends, Apple is not about to start enabling the side-stepping of insanely high AT&T service charges. Even if the iPhone is available on Verizon next year(s), the usage charges will be similarly insane.
You're not going to see Apple approve applications that allow people to communicate WIDELY without using the pay-per-use features of the iPhone, such as SMS and Calling. Its just not going to happen, for as long as Apple can manage it. They need to have to pull with their carrier partners so they can go about their own schedule ( unlike any other mobile manufacturer in the world ), and they are not going to piss anyone off by enabling loop holes like Google Voice.
Guess again.
This is a sensible post. It about sums up my thoughts on the matter.
You mean like your statement that GV simply adds on to Apple's UI rather than replacing it?
Apple's statement quite clearly says that you're wrong. Since you keep repeating the same statement after being corrected, it is no longer a simple error - it is a lie.
wtf are you talking about? No developer has access to replacing Apple's UI. That's called a hack.
It doesn't matter if the GV app UI is giant dolphin whose tail you spin to make a call. Point is, it makes calls.
Therefor, bye bye.
Is there a vid available of the full app? I'd love to watch it.
I doubt it, it was a closed beta.
Anyway, wanted to add to my previous response to you comments about the GV Mobile app (and by extension, the actual Google GV app).
Yes, they can act as replacements for most/all of the telephony/messaging features built into the iPhone OS. But they only thing you can accuse google of in this case is doing it all in one place. Even Apple doesn't do this, and requires two apps (phone and messages).
For almost all (maybe all) of the individual features that the GV app duplicates, there are individual apps approved that duplicate/replace/offer an alternative. But, none of them consolidate them al into a single interface. GV App does. So is that the threat? That Google did what others have done, but did it better? So well, that users might opt to use GV as a full replacement for the Apple functions?
I think so and is what I have been saying since the app was first rejected ( ok, not formally rejected but put into approval limbo). I would suggest to Apple, don't be afraid of GV. Beat them. Improve upon what you have and beat them. Of course, the real trojan horse is that the GV service (not the app) offer a lot for free that Apple will never be willing to offer for free (nor do I think the should) . But free is hard to beat so better to ban/delay the app?
Unfortunately, Apple is not the friendly guy next store that everyone seems to think they are. They care about their customers, but they are not prepared to join the fight against unreasonable data charges. As a partner of AT&T, with business deals that will continue long after the exclusivity ends, Apple is not about to start enabling the side-stepping of insanely high AT&T service charges. Even if the iPhone is available on Verizon next year(s), the usage charges will be similarly insane.
You're not going to see Apple approve applications that allow people to communicate WIDELY without using the pay-per-use features of the iPhone, such as SMS and Calling. Its just not going to happen, for as long as Apple can manage it. They need to have to pull with their carrier partners so they can go about their own schedule ( unlike any other mobile manufacturer in the world ), and they are not going to piss anyone off by enabling loop holes like Google Voice.
Guess again.
It would allow free SMS and therefore by pass AT&T paid service, but there are other apps that allow exactly this.
It doesn't bypass (unless they were gong to include VoIP..maybe) the AT&T calling. Your calls still go over AT&T's voice lines and therefore you are still subject to whatever rate or fees they charge your for these calls in and or out. You do avoid there long distance rates, but you can use calling cards or alternative long distance providers for this already.
I do think you are right, it is about not allowing users to use for free what they can be charged for. I think only that you are wrong is what services are threatened. Apple gave two examples themselves..SMS and VVM. GV, if done well, would allow users to completely replace the built in functions for these two services. In countries outside of the US, when GV is available, it would allow users to drop these options and use the GV service for free.
wtf are you talking about? No developer has access to replacing Apple's UI. That's called a hack.
Dead horse or brick wall, you decide. You will have little luck in explaining basic things like that.
My impression is a lot like yours, the word used doesn't really seem to fit the usual use of the word, but is probably still a valid use.
I think it depends on the intention behind the word replace. I'm pretty sure the regular phone app is still there, but the GV app can be used such that the regular phone app isn't necessary to those that want to use GV.
It would seem to me that Apple should have enough software and equipment to know whether or not this GV app is trying to be a VOIP app, for them to say they don't know seems to be a diversionary tactic. Every report I've seen suggests that GV isn't doing VOIP to a phone, that it's still using regular air time.
The wording is interesting, but it seems valid to me as well.
Again, I'm not sure how to feel about it. Google seems to be infringing here in some way. At least if I were Apple that's certainly how I'd view it. It's an effort to duplicate Apple's entire telephony interface and functionality - but according to Google's standards, and it's cleverly offered as an app, as a "choice." Choice is fine, but this "alternative" can function as a complete replacement, which renders a key part of the iPhone OS completely irrelevant. It isn't like duplicating Apple's Voice Memo app or whatnot. This is a huge duplication, and it can be viewed as Google strong-arming its way onto the iPhone. It smacks of some kind of infringement, though I'm not sure what.
What's interesting, as I've said, is that the loophole Google used here is to offer it as an app. As a choice. Simply tap on it and boom, alternate reality. Sneaky, sneaky. Apple seems to want to try to catch them them at their own game, but the word "replacement" seems to be something that can be interpreted in more than one way.
Either way, I can certainly understand why Apple (notwithstanding how this affects AT&T) has an issue with this.
The wording is interesting, but it seems valid to me as well.
Again, I'm not sure how to feel about it. Google seems to be infringing here in some way. At least if I were Apple that's certainly how I'd view it. It's an effort to duplicate Apple's entire telephony interface and functionality - but according to Google's standards, and it's cleverly offered as an app, as a "choice." Choice is fine, but this "alternative" can function as a complete replacement, which renders a key part of the iPhone OS completely irrelevant. It isn't like duplicating Apple's Voice Memo app or whatnot. This is a huge duplication, and it can be viewed as Google strong-arming its way onto the iPhone. It smacks of some kind of infringement, though I'm not sure what.
What's interesting, as I've said, is that the loophole Google used here is to offer it as an app. As a choice. Simply tap on it and boom, alternate reality. Sneaky, sneaky. Apple seems to want to try to catch them them at their own game, but the word "replacement" seems to be something that can be interpreted in more than one way.
Either way, I can certainly understand why Apple (notwithstanding how this affects AT&T) has an issue with this.
And yet, for all of that, Apple is encouraging them to do it as a web app, which will still duplicate those same functions. Maybe not as nicely, but it should do the job.
The web app could function as just as full a replacement, so why no problem there? Maybe it would be limited compared to the native app in some way. Certainly, the two examples Apple gave of replaced functionality, SMS and VVM, would benefit from being native, if only because of Push, which a web app wouldn't have.
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.
Sorry, I can see clearly everyday what is happening. I use a work-provided Windows and Blackberry device every weekday, alongside my Mac and iPhone.
I think you're wrong in exactly the same way that bloggers and tech nerds went ape-shit when Apple didn't allow apps back in 2007, though it was clear to me at the time that Apple was still working the SDK. (Altho the idiotic thing is they really think their complaining caused Apple to release the SDK. Ha Ha.)
Now, it's just as clear to me that Apple is working on fixing/clarifying something internal/fundamental to the iPhone that is impacted by the way the GV app works. There's a strategic decision to be made, and that takes time as Apple sorts out their choices. And it may be that the end result is no GV App because Apple will provide some other way to get there. But it may also be that Apple allows GV after it fixes some underlying APIs so users can set parameters so that its Phone, Messages, and Contacts Apps work in a better and more integrated way with GV.
BTW, the Pre's across-the-device local data integration is one place to look for a clue as to what is needed. Right now, Apple only provides that somewhat in its search function.
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.
Tell that to Martha Stewart. Who cares if it's called "perjury" or "lying to investigators and obstruction of justice" when you are sitting in a jail cell. One of the charges against Stewart included the assertion that public statements she made (to no one in particular) declaring her innocence were part of a conspiracy to mislead investors.
False statements don't have to be "sworn", "under oath". or made to particular officials to get you into serious legal trouble.