Well, in my original post, I indicated that you were nuts for giving them your personal information, but that I was not happy with their practices of dangling bits of tech candy in front of the weak minded to also get my information, without my consent.
Then you are obvious outraged that Apple has enabled this to happen automatically on all Macs with Snow Leopard, right? Check a box and all my contacts and all that info I have on you, goes to Google..or yahoo...or Apple.
Guess Apple is liable for your info going to google by taking advantage of the 'simple minded'.
I do sympathize with your paranoia about google and their having your info. But, how is this improved by Apple denying the GV app? Not only does Apple enable all of your contacts to go to google, built right into their main OS, there are lots of methods for users to sync their contacts into into google, yahoo, msn, mobileme and all other info services. So, banning the app does what in this regard? nothing.
A compelling product. A service that has the potential to radically upset the status quo in telephone services. A combination so innovative that it has a company known for great innovation so afraid that they try to minimize the damage with weak gestures like banning the app.
A compelling product. A service that has the potential to radically upset the status quo in telephone services. A combination so innovative that it has a company known for great innovation so afraid that they try to minimize the damage with weak gestures like banning the app.
Seems very fitting to me.
This "innovation" didn't come from Apple. When Apple applauds the "misfits", "square pegs", etc., it's referring to itself, not any third party that duplicates its feature set and causes problems between Apple and its partner, AT&T. Gandhi, Einstein, etc., are not just a metaphor for Apple, but a metpahor for what Apple creates. Apple's own ideas, or ones that it has acquired and implemented on its own terms.
It might be a different story if Apple buys the rights to GV from Google or releases their own GV-style app.
It's only cool to talk about how cool the misfits and upstarts are when they're a metaphor for you. And I really don't see Apple and Google "teaming up" to implement this. Not in the competitive climate they're in now.
And the perfect example of Apple being an innovator, a misfit, a "square peg", is the iPhone itself, and the revolution that Apple brought to the mobile industry overnight.
This "innovation" didn't come from Apple. When Apple applauds the "misfits", "square pegs", etc., it's referring to itself, not any third party that duplicates its feature set and causes problems between Apple and its partner, AT&T. Gandhi, Einstein, etc., are not just a metaphor for Apple, but a metpahor for what Apple creates. Apple's own ideas, or ones that it has acquired and implemented on its own terms.
It might be a different story if Apple buys the rights to GV from Google or releases their own GV-style app.
It's only cool to talk about how cool the misfits and upstarts are when they're a metaphor for you. And I really don't see Apple and Google "teaming up" to implement this. Not in the competitive climate they're in now.
And the perfect example of Apple being an innovator, a misfit, a "square peg", is the iPhone itself, and the revolution that Apple brought to the mobile industry overnight.
Google didn't invent this, and there is no reason that Apple themselves couldn't develop their own take on the concept.
I think Tulkas has made his/her point abundantly clear. For those of you who think Apple's explanation makes sense, can one of you please explain how it might do what Apple is asserting it does - ie replacing core telephony? I don't think anyone on that side of the argument have demonstrated anything except parroting Apple press releases or jeering.
To me, it's simple. There's no physical way to replace the functionality. You might choose to use another dialer - like the numerous ones out there, but that's a choice and the 'core' telephony never ceases to exist. If someone calls me on my mobile number and I don't answer, then a VVM is left for me should the caller choose to leave one. So VVM never disappears, either.
I think Tulkas has made his/her point abundantly clear. For those of you who think Apple's explanation makes sense, can one of you please explain how it might do what Apple is asserting it does - ie replacing core telephony? I don't think anyone on that side of the argument have demonstrated anything except parroting Apple press releases or jeering.
To me, it's simple. There's no physical way to replace the functionality. You might choose to use another dialer - like the numerous ones out there, but that's a choice and the 'core' telephony never ceases to exist. If someone calls me on my mobile number and I don't answer, then a VVM is left for me should the caller choose to leave one. So VVM never disappears, either.
Google is free to develop and market their own phone (with their own carrier agreement) which they could put anything they wanted on. They have the resources, they even had a shot a bidding for the 700MHz spectrum but they chickened-out.
Honestly, I sometimes wonder if having every little task done for them (like their laundry) has made the braintrust at Google lazy real-world thinkers.
"Clearly, though, Google doesn’t see the difference between “not accepted” and “rejected” that Apple claims to see."
In a similar way that someone that has applied to Harvard might not see a difference between a letter that says they were not accepted and one that said they were rejected. Or the difference between getting a letter in that mail from the bank that said you were not approved for a loan and one that said you were rejected.
In a similar way that someone that has applied to Harvard might not see a difference between a letter that says they were not accepted and one that said they were rejected. Or the difference between getting a letter in that mail from the bank that said you were not approved for a loan and one that said you were rejected.
And similar to admission to the App Store... acceptance to Harvard, or obtaining a bank load requires that certain criteria are met.
Circumstances can change. A student can get better grades. A loan applicant might add a zero to their salary and Google might amend the GV app.
Many people are accusing Apple of lying in their letter to the FCC. But I have yet to see anyone offer a good reason why Apple should do so. Apple knew that both AT&T and Google had been asked the same questions. I believe that (legally) Apple are within their rights to reject any application to their App Store. If they really had just outright rejected GV... and they fully expected Google's letter to confirm that..... then why write that the app was still going through the process?
And similar to admission to the App Store... acceptance to Harvard, or obtaining a bank load requires that certain criteria are met.
Circumstances can change. A student can get better grades. A loan applicant might add a zero to their salary and Google might amend the GV app.
Many people are accusing Apple of lying in their letter to the FCC. But I have yet to see anyone offer a good reason why Apple should do so. Apple knew that both AT&T and Google had been asked the same questions. I believe that (legally) Apple are within their rights to reject any application to their App Store. If they really had just outright rejected GV... and they fully expected Google's letter to confirm that..... then why write that the app was still going through the process?
I don;t think they lied. I think they crafted their response very carefully (actually reads more like a press release than a response to a gov body). There isa ton of wiggle room in their statements and some phrases seemingly chosen to confuse (well, confuse some).
And yes, criteria must be met. Hopefully they are equally and evenly applied.
Mainly my response was to show that now matter how you parse 'not approved' or 'rejected', there is little difference in practice or reality.
And if they completely screw it up by driving away the developers and creating bad press for themsevles it will be their fault...outside the Mac community that is.
That's exactly the point. Action = reaction. Let them do the 'right' things and it will flourish, they will simply pay a penalty if they make bad decisions... but it's no reason to sue them or get the government involved.
Comments
the complainers, the misfits,the rebels. Those that challenge the status quo. think different.
Apple has improved much in the past by listening to 'complainers'. They used to even celebrate them.
I don't think GV is really the same thing here.
Well, in my original post, I indicated that you were nuts for giving them your personal information, but that I was not happy with their practices of dangling bits of tech candy in front of the weak minded to also get my information, without my consent.
Then you are obvious outraged that Apple has enabled this to happen automatically on all Macs with Snow Leopard, right? Check a box and all my contacts and all that info I have on you, goes to Google..or yahoo...or Apple.
Guess Apple is liable for your info going to google by taking advantage of the 'simple minded'.
I do sympathize with your paranoia about google and their having your info. But, how is this improved by Apple denying the GV app? Not only does Apple enable all of your contacts to go to google, built right into their main OS, there are lots of methods for users to sync their contacts into into google, yahoo, msn, mobileme and all other info services. So, banning the app does what in this regard? nothing.
I don't think GV is really the same thing here.
A compelling product. A service that has the potential to radically upset the status quo in telephone services. A combination so innovative that it has a company known for great innovation so afraid that they try to minimize the damage with weak gestures like banning the app.
Seems very fitting to me.
A compelling product. A service that has the potential to radically upset the status quo in telephone services. A combination so innovative that it has a company known for great innovation so afraid that they try to minimize the damage with weak gestures like banning the app.
Seems very fitting to me.
This "innovation" didn't come from Apple. When Apple applauds the "misfits", "square pegs", etc., it's referring to itself, not any third party that duplicates its feature set and causes problems between Apple and its partner, AT&T. Gandhi, Einstein, etc., are not just a metaphor for Apple, but a metpahor for what Apple creates. Apple's own ideas, or ones that it has acquired and implemented on its own terms.
It might be a different story if Apple buys the rights to GV from Google or releases their own GV-style app.
It's only cool to talk about how cool the misfits and upstarts are when they're a metaphor for you. And I really don't see Apple and Google "teaming up" to implement this. Not in the competitive climate they're in now.
And the perfect example of Apple being an innovator, a misfit, a "square peg", is the iPhone itself, and the revolution that Apple brought to the mobile industry overnight.
This "innovation" didn't come from Apple. When Apple applauds the "misfits", "square pegs", etc., it's referring to itself, not any third party that duplicates its feature set and causes problems between Apple and its partner, AT&T. Gandhi, Einstein, etc., are not just a metaphor for Apple, but a metpahor for what Apple creates. Apple's own ideas, or ones that it has acquired and implemented on its own terms.
It might be a different story if Apple buys the rights to GV from Google or releases their own GV-style app.
It's only cool to talk about how cool the misfits and upstarts are when they're a metaphor for you. And I really don't see Apple and Google "teaming up" to implement this. Not in the competitive climate they're in now.
And the perfect example of Apple being an innovator, a misfit, a "square peg", is the iPhone itself, and the revolution that Apple brought to the mobile industry overnight.
Google didn't invent this, and there is no reason that Apple themselves couldn't develop their own take on the concept.
To me, it's simple. There's no physical way to replace the functionality. You might choose to use another dialer - like the numerous ones out there, but that's a choice and the 'core' telephony never ceases to exist. If someone calls me on my mobile number and I don't answer, then a VVM is left for me should the caller choose to leave one. So VVM never disappears, either.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...788942&page=13
You'd think it's something from Winsupersite.
I think Tulkas has made his/her point abundantly clear. For those of you who think Apple's explanation makes sense, can one of you please explain how it might do what Apple is asserting it does - ie replacing core telephony? I don't think anyone on that side of the argument have demonstrated anything except parroting Apple press releases or jeering.
To me, it's simple. There's no physical way to replace the functionality. You might choose to use another dialer - like the numerous ones out there, but that's a choice and the 'core' telephony never ceases to exist. If someone calls me on my mobile number and I don't answer, then a VVM is left for me should the caller choose to leave one. So VVM never disappears, either.
Google is free to develop and market their own phone (with their own carrier agreement) which they could put anything they wanted on. They have the resources, they even had a shot a bidding for the 700MHz spectrum but they chickened-out.
Honestly, I sometimes wonder if having every little task done for them (like their laundry) has made the braintrust at Google lazy real-world thinkers.
If you guys think there's controversy in *this* thread, check out the following:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...788942&page=13
You'd think it's something from Winsupersite.
Thanks for that. The quoted link is a good example.
Daring Fireball
"Clearly, though, Google doesn’t see the difference between “not accepted” and “rejected” that Apple claims to see."
For all those of you bickering on both sides of the semantics fence.... John Gruber sums it up (as usual with just one simple sentence.
Daring Fireball
"Clearly, though, Google doesn’t see the difference between “not accepted” and “rejected” that Apple claims to see."
In a similar way that someone that has applied to Harvard might not see a difference between a letter that says they were not accepted and one that said they were rejected. Or the difference between getting a letter in that mail from the bank that said you were not approved for a loan and one that said you were rejected.
In a similar way that someone that has applied to Harvard might not see a difference between a letter that says they were not accepted and one that said they were rejected. Or the difference between getting a letter in that mail from the bank that said you were not approved for a loan and one that said you were rejected.
And similar to admission to the App Store... acceptance to Harvard, or obtaining a bank load requires that certain criteria are met.
Circumstances can change. A student can get better grades. A loan applicant might add a zero to their salary and Google might amend the GV app.
Many people are accusing Apple of lying in their letter to the FCC. But I have yet to see anyone offer a good reason why Apple should do so. Apple knew that both AT&T and Google had been asked the same questions. I believe that (legally) Apple are within their rights to reject any application to their App Store. If they really had just outright rejected GV... and they fully expected Google's letter to confirm that..... then why write that the app was still going through the process?
Well now Google sells an iPhone look-a-like with their name on the back of it. So let's just call it even..lol.
They do? Exactly what phone is that? Please don't say android.
And similar to admission to the App Store... acceptance to Harvard, or obtaining a bank load requires that certain criteria are met.
Circumstances can change. A student can get better grades. A loan applicant might add a zero to their salary and Google might amend the GV app.
Many people are accusing Apple of lying in their letter to the FCC. But I have yet to see anyone offer a good reason why Apple should do so. Apple knew that both AT&T and Google had been asked the same questions. I believe that (legally) Apple are within their rights to reject any application to their App Store. If they really had just outright rejected GV... and they fully expected Google's letter to confirm that..... then why write that the app was still going through the process?
I don;t think they lied. I think they crafted their response very carefully (actually reads more like a press release than a response to a gov body). There isa ton of wiggle room in their statements and some phrases seemingly chosen to confuse (well, confuse some).
And yes, criteria must be met. Hopefully they are equally and evenly applied.
Mainly my response was to show that now matter how you parse 'not approved' or 'rejected', there is little difference in practice or reality.
And if they completely screw it up by driving away the developers and creating bad press for themsevles it will be their fault...outside the Mac community that is.
That's exactly the point. Action = reaction. Let them do the 'right' things and it will flourish, they will simply pay a penalty if they make bad decisions... but it's no reason to sue them or get the government involved.