Apple can decide who they let on the iPhone - they created it. Why should Google get better treatment than every else? Because they're bigger?
no...but that might be why they are not being treated like everyone else...that's the point. Others have similar apps approved and released. Even some GV third party apps made it...
the ruling applies to VoIP apps and the network owners restricting those apps as well as tethering etc. Read it.
If Apple sticks to it's statement about the reasons that the app was "not yet accepted" then this ruling simply doesn't apply. Apple already allows VoIP on the iPhone, but the contract with AT&T disallows use of VoIP on their network. This ruling would remove AT&T's restriction, but have nothing to do with the reasons Apple says were involved in not approving the Google Voice app.
In other words, it would "free up" the VoIP apps already on the phone. This would more likely lead to Google changing the implementation of Google Voice the way Apple says they want them to, so as to better compete with those apps. It's more likely a "win" for Apple than for anyone else.
Looks a lot to me as though you are fabricating to make a point, putting words in my mouth, and trying to cover it up. I do agree, though, that your assertions are worthless, however, I will avoid casting aspersions on your character.
See, that;s the funny thing. There is no ned to make stuff up in this case. Your posts and Mac Tripper and John B. all speak for themselves.
The other funny thing is that with all the paranoia about Google and their apparent attempts to use their services to create the New World Order, not one of you has put together a coherent argument as to how that should affect Apple's business decisions regarding the Google Voice App.
You hate Google? Fine. You think they are out to get you? OK. They are the new boogie man? Great. How should these personal beliefs affect Apple's business decisions? Simple. They shouldn't. Apple did mention user data as one of their reasons, but it was left to the end, more of an after thought. Apparently, all they want is Google's guarantee to use it appropriately. Apple themselves built in syncing all contacts from Snow Leopard to Google, so they obviously do not share the paranoia of some of the Righteous Defenders here.
We aren't a socialist state where private enterprise in our free market system is dictated to by our Government to the same degree that the USA seems to be heading.
Your FCC better not screw up on forcing companies to accept "Internet based" applications on their devices or spammers and spyware makers will have a field day.
If you look at the comments I was replying to, the poster was saying ALL iPhone users should have this App, so if Apple is forced to allow it to iPhone users then shouldn't Google be forced to provide the service to ALL iPhone users.
OK. I'll be more blunt. Nobody said that all iPhone users should have this app. People say that iPhone users should be able to install this app, if they choose. Big difference. Second, your assertion that if Apple is forced to approve this app that the FCC should force Google to provide the service to all iPhone users is just plain silly.
The FCC has no jurisdiction outside the US and frankly they don't care what Google does in Australia or anywhere else. If you want Google to be forced to provide the service in Australia, then how about you give your feedback to Google and to your representatives? Use your totally free Australian market to get Google to see the revenue opportunity they are ignoring by not offering GV in Australia. There are many apps that are dependent on an underlying service that is not available in a particular country. As far as I know, DirectTV is not available outside the US. Should they be forced to offer their service to everyone on the planet with a TV because they have an app available in the App Store?
Your statement that the US is heading towards becoming a Socialist state is laughable.
Lastly, your knowledge of the proposed net neutrality rules in the US is nil. The rules that will be proposed on Monday have no effect on wireless networks. Google wants them to, but the FCC is proposing nothing that effects wireless carriers in the US.
Google wants it's App forced on Apple's device by having the FCC, as a Government body representing the US government to step in.
Government (as in representing the people) controlling decisions made by free enterprises in a free market system equals socialism, after all as a consumer, you can buy a phone with a platform that supports this application, that is called competition.
That is where this game should be played, not with government intervention but in the marketplace.
So why should the US Government make decisions that should be the right of companies to make, it could set a dangerous precedent, who will decide which Apps should be forced on Apple in future?
What if spammers or spyware makers want to put Apps in the App store, will they be able to have the same rights as Google and be able to cry foul if their Apps are rejected, asked to be rewritten and resubmitted or whatever APPLE as the owner of the platform requires to allow an App into their store.
As to why Google probably won't offer this service in Australia.
We don't pay for incoming calls so Google would have to pay carrier termination fees, not the end user as is the case in the US.
Maybe they can support it by advertising like their other "free" services so who knows.
We also don't have long distance on our mobile networks there are only National and International calls, roaming really only exists when travelling overseas apart from a few rare exceptions.
btw how many Verizon phone's have GV Apps?
Maybe if an iPhone on AT&T doesn't suit your needs you should consider something else which does, as a consumer in a free market economy it is your decision to make, not the governments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slu
OK. I'll be more blunt. Nobody said that all iPhone users should have this app. People say that iPhone users should be able to install this app, if they choose. Big difference. Second, your assertion that if Apple is forced to approve this app that the FCC should force Google to provide the service to all iPhone users is just plain silly.
The FCC has no jurisdiction outside the US and frankly they don't care what Google does in Australia or anywhere else. If you want Google to be forced to provide the service in Australia, then how about you give your feedback to Google and to your representatives? Use your totally free Australian market to get Google to see the revenue opportunity they are ignoring by not offering GV in Australia. There are many apps that are dependent on an underlying service that is not available in a particular country. As far as I know, DirectTV is not available outside the US. Should they be forced to offer their service to everyone on the planet with a TV because they have an app available in the App Store?
Your statement that the US is heading towards becoming a Socialist state is laughable.
Lastly, your knowledge of the proposed net neutrality rules in the US is nil. The rules that will be proposed on Monday have no effect on wireless networks. Google wants them to, but the FCC is proposing nothing that effects wireless carriers in the US.
Google wants it's App forced on Apple's device by having the FCC, as a Government body representing the US government to step in.
Government (as in representing the people) controlling decisions made by free enterprises in a free market system equals socialism, after all as a consumer, you can buy a phone with a platform that supports this application, that is called competition.
That is where this game should be played, not with government intervention but in the marketplace.
So why should the US Government make decisions that should be the right of companies to make, it could set a dangerous precedent, who will decide which Apps should be forced on Apple in future?
What if spammers or spyware makers want to put Apps in the App store, will they be able to have the same rights as Google and be able to cry foul if their Apps are rejected, asked to be rewritten and resubmitted or whatever APPLE as the owner of the platform requires to allow an App into their store.
As to why Google probably won't offer this service in Australia.
We don't pay for incoming calls so Google would have to pay carrier termination fees, not the end user as is the case in the US.
Maybe they can support it by advertising like their other "free" services so who knows.
We also don't have long distance on our mobile networks there are only National and International calls, roaming really only exists when travelling overseas apart from a few rare exceptions.
btw how many Verizon phone's have GV Apps?
Maybe if an iPhone on AT&T doesn't suit your needs you should consider something else which does, as a consumer in a free market economy it is your decision to make, not the governments.
2. I don't really care about the GV app, per se. I have a problem with the App Store approval process. I bought the phone and as long as the app is not malicious I should be able to install any app I want on it. Just like I can on my Mac. What if spyware or spammers want to put apps on the internet for OS X? Do you think if malware came out for the iPhone nobody would know or try to prevent it if the platform was more open?
Apple is within their legal right to exclude any app for any reason they want. That does not mean I have to like it or that it is good for the public at large. Apple is acting in what they think is in the best interests of their shareholders. The entire reason regulation exists is because what is in the best interests of the shareholders of a particular company may not be in the best interests of the public at large. This does not equal socialism. In fact in works the same way in your country. You are correct in that when my contract is up I will be investigating alternatives to the iPhone to see if I should go somewhere else. I will vote with my wallet. But I have also sent feedback to Apple and I hope that they see it fit to change their minds. Like they did about matte screen and firewire ports on 13.3 inch laptops. Apple has the right to do what they want I have the right to publicly disagree with their policy.
3. Google did not call the FCC and say "Force our app on the iPhone". The FCC decided to investigate to see if AT&T had any role in the rejection. The reason this is a key distinction is because AT&T operates on the public airwaves via a license they purchased from the US government. In the US, the FCC has the right to regulate the public airwaves to ensure they are used for the good of the public. If AT&T had no role in the rejection, which I don't think they did since you can get a GV app for a Blackberry on AT&T, then the FCC has no authority in the matter.
4. I don't care about Google Voice in Australia or why it might not be there. I don't really care about Google Voice. The main reason I even responded to you in the first place was to try to illustrate how silly your statement that the if the FCC forces Apple to put the GV app in the App store that they should also force Google to offer the Google Voice Service to everyone on the planet with an iPhone. You keep ignoring these parts of my responses.
Google wants it's App forced on Apple's device by having the FCC, as a Government body representing the US government to step in.
Government (as in representing the people) controlling decisions made by free enterprises in a free market system equals socialism, after all as a consumer, you can buy a phone with a platform that supports this application, that is called competition.
That is where this game should be played, not with government intervention but in the marketplace.
So why should the US Government make decisions that should be the right of companies to make, it could set a dangerous precedent, who will decide which Apps should be forced on Apple in future?
What if spammers or spyware makers want to put Apps in the App store, will they be able to have the same rights as Google and be able to cry foul if their Apps are rejected, asked to be rewritten and resubmitted or whatever APPLE as the owner of the platform requires to allow an App into their store.
As to why Google probably won't offer this service in Australia.
We don't pay for incoming calls so Google would have to pay carrier termination fees, not the end user as is the case in the US.
Maybe they can support it by advertising like their other "free" services so who knows.
We also don't have long distance on our mobile networks there are only National and International calls, roaming really only exists when travelling overseas apart from a few rare exceptions.
btw how many Verizon phone's have GV Apps?
Maybe if an iPhone on AT&T doesn't suit your needs you should consider something else which does, as a consumer in a free market economy it is your decision to make, not the governments.
Delusional or fabricated.
No google is not trying to have their app forced on the iPhone. At best you could claim they trying force apple to allow users the choice to install it on their phones that they paid for. The rest if your post is based on your inaccurate premise and holds as much value.
I don't understand Apples real motivation in all of this, at all.
their motivation is easy. they don't want to have to provide support for someone using another interface on the phone when it doesn't work.
as for not telling the truth. I haven't seen a validated email or a voice recording of Phil and what he said to Google so it is equally possible they are fudging the truth.
also, was there any prior statement re: what you can and can't do with an app that says that creating an alt interface such as they are saying Google has is a no-no. I recall that Microsoft has recently been extremely clear they won't allow it with WinMo but what about Apple. Because if it is spelled out plainly in the rules and was when Google joined up, they really can't say anything. they might think the rule unfair but so far nothing has been said to disallow Apple legally from making any rule they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualie
If it hasn't been accepted, then it's been rejected. It seems pretty black and white. Fudging the obvious by saying it is neither accepted nor rejected is just baloney.
yes and no. there is "rejected at this time, feel free to fix these issues and resubmit" and "rejected get the F out of here and don't come back"
Apple is claiming it was the former, Google the latter. google is also claiming that Apple has no right to the latter.
Just as you ignored the fact that my original post was in reply to someone who said that ALL iPhone owners should have access to this App, using people such as myself as an example as to why this idea is neither possible or desirable.
The FCC should back off and let the free market system decide, to jump in with government interference for the "good of the people" is socialist behaviour.
Moving on if the FCC gains the power to decide what Apple should and could include, who decides which Apps the FCC forces Apple to take?
Based on Google's GV App it looks like the vendor gets to make the decision hence an invasion of spammers and spyware makers, who may possibly seek damages if their software is not approved.
Under the net neutrality rules, will using Spyware blocking software constitute blocking "any application" from using a network.
The FCC should be very careful in how they word their proposed regulations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slu
...also force Google to offer the Google Voice Service to everyone on the planet with an iPhone. You keep ignoring these parts of my responses.
So why doesn't Google modify their App so it meets Apples requirements as spelled out by Apple then resubmit it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Delusional or fabricated.
No google is not trying to have their app forced on the iPhone. At best you could claim they trying force apple to allow users the choice to install it on their phones that they paid for. The rest if your post is based on your inaccurate premise and holds as much value.
The iPod Touch doesn't have a camera because it's a gaming console, didn't you know that?! Don't believe anyone who says they had to pull that feature at the last minute!
since you choose to go there.
wrong. Apple at NO point ever said there was going to be a camera in the Touch. They never even said they were thinking about maybe perhaps one day putting a camera in the Touch. That they might have researched it, that they might have built a prototype of that idea is not the same as Phil or anyone else getting up on a stage or releasing a notice that there was going to be a camera in the Touch and then going "we changed our minds" at the event.
so no, they didn't lie. it just turns out that the rumor sites and the so called expert analysts were wrong this time
wrong. Apple at NO point ever said there was going to be a camera in the Touch. They never even said they were thinking about maybe perhaps one day putting a camera in the Touch. That they might have researched it, that they might have built a prototype of that idea is not the same as Phil or anyone else getting up on a stage or releasing a notice that there was going to be a camera in the Touch and then going "we changed our minds" at the event.
so no, they didn't lie. it just turns out that the rumor sites and the so called expert analysts were wrong this time
Right - and you probably believe the blank space in the Touch is just an accident.
wrong. Apple at NO point ever said there was going to be a camera in the Touch. They never even said they were thinking about maybe perhaps one day putting a camera in the Touch. That they might have researched it, that they might have built a prototype of that idea is not the same as Phil or anyone else getting up on a stage or releasing a notice that there was going to be a camera in the Touch and then going "we changed our minds" at the event.
so no, they didn't lie. it just turns out that the rumor sites and the so called expert analysts were wrong this time
Right - and you probably believe the blank space in the Touch is just happenstance.
Just as you ignored the fact that my original post was in reply to someone who said that ALL iPhone owners should have access to this App, using people such as myself as an example as to why this idea is neither possible or desirable.
The FCC should back off and let the free market system decide, to jump in with government interference for the "good of the people" is socialist behaviour.
Moving on if the FCC gains the power to decide what Apple should and could include, who decides which Apps the FCC forces Apple to take?
Based on Google's GV App it looks like the vendor gets to make the decision hence an invasion of spammers and spyware makers, who may possibly seek damages if their software is not approved.
Under the net neutrality rules, will using Spyware blocking software constitute blocking "any application" from using a network.
The FCC should be very careful in how they word their proposed regulations.
So when I said this, i wasn't addressing your original "point"?
Quote:
Nobody said that all iPhone users should have this app. People say that iPhone users should be able to install this app, if they choose. Big difference. Second, your assertion that if Apple is forced to approve this app that the FCC should force Google to provide the service to all iPhone users is just plain silly.
And your "point" is just semantics anyway. There are plenty of country specific apps. Even if someone did say that ALL iPhone owners should have access to this app, you don't think it is implied that they meant all iPhone owners who have access to Google Voice should have access to the app? You are arguing minutia. And if if the app was available worldwide, how would that be undesirable or detrimental to for you? See my previous DirectTV app example.
Are are really asking a "who polices the police" question? Seriously? If you want to know who the FCC answers to in the US, there is a wealth of information available on the internet that can explain it to you.
Again, you need to read what net neutrality means in the US. I'll break it down for you. Basically, it means that an ISP cannot prioritize certain traffic on their network over other traffic. So the cable company that also provides internet access cannot slow down streaming video in favor of their cable TV traffic. They cannot slow down Skype traffic is favor of their own VOIP solution. Basically, ISPs must treat all network traffic equally. That is it. It does not mean anyone can put anything they want on your network. It is not like leaving the door to your house open and throwing your locks away, which is how you are characterizing it. You can and will get kicked off of most ISPs in the US today if you are a spammer or are breaking other laws (i.e. fraud).
My issue is with Apple and the App Store approval process. It is my phone and I should be able to install whatever I want on it, just like I can on my Mac. Period.
phone number consolidation. Free long distance. free voice mail. Voice mail transcription.
All features available to users of the iPhone, with or without the native App. Apple banning it in no way prevents iPhone users from using the service. The app would have simply made it more convenient to use the service.
Thank you: As I understood it when I looked at the GV website: My t-mobile phone already has my number(s) consolidated, free long distance, I can forward calls from my (VoIP) work phone and have free voicemail. Oh: I can also assign different ring tones to work or personal callers ... anything important I missed?
Funny enough: This reminds me of the strange fact that only with the appearance of "apps" on the iPhone some people are recognizing available software tools, some of which have been available for a long time on Windows Mobile e.g. (there, I said the "W" word) ...
Can anyone explain the reason why Google auto software updater is not rootkit, since I look over the internet and many people have stated different opinions.
To me it is rootkit and many people who stated in this forum it is not, I am not taking their word for it, since the same people have been ranting about providing facts to our opinions.
Can anyone explain the reason why Google auto software updater is not rootkit, since I look over the internet and many people have stated different opinions.
To me it is rootkit and many people who stated in this forum it is not, I am not taking their word for it, since the same people have been ranting about providing facts to our opinions.
1. (computing) A set of software tools used by a third party after gaining access to a computer system in order to conceal the altering of files, or processes being executed by the third party without the user's knowledge.
The reason some people say it is and some people say it isn't a rootkit is because some people believe that the Google Earth (important distinction) Auto Update program does more than Google claims it does and some don't.
If you believe the program sends more personal information back to Google than the Terms of Service state they do, then you would call it a rootkit.
Comments
Apple can decide who they let on the iPhone - they created it. Why should Google get better treatment than every else? Because they're bigger?
no...but that might be why they are not being treated like everyone else...that's the point. Others have similar apps approved and released. Even some GV third party apps made it...
Nope.
the ruling applies to VoIP apps and the network owners restricting those apps as well as tethering etc. Read it.
If Apple sticks to it's statement about the reasons that the app was "not yet accepted" then this ruling simply doesn't apply. Apple already allows VoIP on the iPhone, but the contract with AT&T disallows use of VoIP on their network. This ruling would remove AT&T's restriction, but have nothing to do with the reasons Apple says were involved in not approving the Google Voice app.
In other words, it would "free up" the VoIP apps already on the phone. This would more likely lead to Google changing the implementation of Google Voice the way Apple says they want them to, so as to better compete with those apps. It's more likely a "win" for Apple than for anyone else.
That makes sense.
Let's see what happens.
Looks a lot to me as though you are fabricating to make a point, putting words in my mouth, and trying to cover it up. I do agree, though, that your assertions are worthless, however, I will avoid casting aspersions on your character.
See, that;s the funny thing. There is no ned to make stuff up in this case. Your posts and Mac Tripper and John B. all speak for themselves.
The other funny thing is that with all the paranoia about Google and their apparent attempts to use their services to create the New World Order, not one of you has put together a coherent argument as to how that should affect Apple's business decisions regarding the Google Voice App.
You hate Google? Fine. You think they are out to get you? OK. They are the new boogie man? Great. How should these personal beliefs affect Apple's business decisions? Simple. They shouldn't. Apple did mention user data as one of their reasons, but it was left to the end, more of an after thought. Apparently, all they want is Google's guarantee to use it appropriately. Apple themselves built in syncing all contacts from Snow Leopard to Google, so they obviously do not share the paranoia of some of the Righteous Defenders here.
Why?
We aren't a socialist state where private enterprise in our free market system is dictated to by our Government to the same degree that the USA seems to be heading.
Your FCC better not screw up on forcing companies to accept "Internet based" applications on their devices or spammers and spyware makers will have a field day.
If you look at the comments I was replying to, the poster was saying ALL iPhone users should have this App, so if Apple is forced to allow it to iPhone users then shouldn't Google be forced to provide the service to ALL iPhone users.
OK. I'll be more blunt. Nobody said that all iPhone users should have this app. People say that iPhone users should be able to install this app, if they choose. Big difference. Second, your assertion that if Apple is forced to approve this app that the FCC should force Google to provide the service to all iPhone users is just plain silly.
The FCC has no jurisdiction outside the US and frankly they don't care what Google does in Australia or anywhere else. If you want Google to be forced to provide the service in Australia, then how about you give your feedback to Google and to your representatives? Use your totally free Australian market to get Google to see the revenue opportunity they are ignoring by not offering GV in Australia. There are many apps that are dependent on an underlying service that is not available in a particular country. As far as I know, DirectTV is not available outside the US. Should they be forced to offer their service to everyone on the planet with a TV because they have an app available in the App Store?
Your statement that the US is heading towards becoming a Socialist state is laughable.
Lastly, your knowledge of the proposed net neutrality rules in the US is nil. The rules that will be proposed on Monday have no effect on wireless networks. Google wants them to, but the FCC is proposing nothing that effects wireless carriers in the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...trality&st=cse
Government (as in representing the people) controlling decisions made by free enterprises in a free market system equals socialism, after all as a consumer, you can buy a phone with a platform that supports this application, that is called competition.
That is where this game should be played, not with government intervention but in the marketplace.
So why should the US Government make decisions that should be the right of companies to make, it could set a dangerous precedent, who will decide which Apps should be forced on Apple in future?
What if spammers or spyware makers want to put Apps in the App store, will they be able to have the same rights as Google and be able to cry foul if their Apps are rejected, asked to be rewritten and resubmitted or whatever APPLE as the owner of the platform requires to allow an App into their store.
As to why Google probably won't offer this service in Australia.
We don't pay for incoming calls so Google would have to pay carrier termination fees, not the end user as is the case in the US.
Maybe they can support it by advertising like their other "free" services so who knows.
We also don't have long distance on our mobile networks there are only National and International calls, roaming really only exists when travelling overseas apart from a few rare exceptions.
btw how many Verizon phone's have GV Apps?
Maybe if an iPhone on AT&T doesn't suit your needs you should consider something else which does, as a consumer in a free market economy it is your decision to make, not the governments.
OK. I'll be more blunt. Nobody said that all iPhone users should have this app. People say that iPhone users should be able to install this app, if they choose. Big difference. Second, your assertion that if Apple is forced to approve this app that the FCC should force Google to provide the service to all iPhone users is just plain silly.
The FCC has no jurisdiction outside the US and frankly they don't care what Google does in Australia or anywhere else. If you want Google to be forced to provide the service in Australia, then how about you give your feedback to Google and to your representatives? Use your totally free Australian market to get Google to see the revenue opportunity they are ignoring by not offering GV in Australia. There are many apps that are dependent on an underlying service that is not available in a particular country. As far as I know, DirectTV is not available outside the US. Should they be forced to offer their service to everyone on the planet with a TV because they have an app available in the App Store?
Your statement that the US is heading towards becoming a Socialist state is laughable.
Lastly, your knowledge of the proposed net neutrality rules in the US is nil. The rules that will be proposed on Monday have no effect on wireless networks. Google wants them to, but the FCC is proposing nothing that effects wireless carriers in the US.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...trality&st=cse
Google wants it's App forced on Apple's device by having the FCC, as a Government body representing the US government to step in.
Government (as in representing the people) controlling decisions made by free enterprises in a free market system equals socialism, after all as a consumer, you can buy a phone with a platform that supports this application, that is called competition.
That is where this game should be played, not with government intervention but in the marketplace.
So why should the US Government make decisions that should be the right of companies to make, it could set a dangerous precedent, who will decide which Apps should be forced on Apple in future?
What if spammers or spyware makers want to put Apps in the App store, will they be able to have the same rights as Google and be able to cry foul if their Apps are rejected, asked to be rewritten and resubmitted or whatever APPLE as the owner of the platform requires to allow an App into their store.
As to why Google probably won't offer this service in Australia.
We don't pay for incoming calls so Google would have to pay carrier termination fees, not the end user as is the case in the US.
Maybe they can support it by advertising like their other "free" services so who knows.
We also don't have long distance on our mobile networks there are only National and International calls, roaming really only exists when travelling overseas apart from a few rare exceptions.
btw how many Verizon phone's have GV Apps?
Maybe if an iPhone on AT&T doesn't suit your needs you should consider something else which does, as a consumer in a free market economy it is your decision to make, not the governments.
1. You need to look up the word socialism as it does not mean what you think it means: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism
2. I don't really care about the GV app, per se. I have a problem with the App Store approval process. I bought the phone and as long as the app is not malicious I should be able to install any app I want on it. Just like I can on my Mac. What if spyware or spammers want to put apps on the internet for OS X? Do you think if malware came out for the iPhone nobody would know or try to prevent it if the platform was more open?
Apple is within their legal right to exclude any app for any reason they want. That does not mean I have to like it or that it is good for the public at large. Apple is acting in what they think is in the best interests of their shareholders. The entire reason regulation exists is because what is in the best interests of the shareholders of a particular company may not be in the best interests of the public at large. This does not equal socialism. In fact in works the same way in your country. You are correct in that when my contract is up I will be investigating alternatives to the iPhone to see if I should go somewhere else. I will vote with my wallet. But I have also sent feedback to Apple and I hope that they see it fit to change their minds. Like they did about matte screen and firewire ports on 13.3 inch laptops. Apple has the right to do what they want I have the right to publicly disagree with their policy.
3. Google did not call the FCC and say "Force our app on the iPhone". The FCC decided to investigate to see if AT&T had any role in the rejection. The reason this is a key distinction is because AT&T operates on the public airwaves via a license they purchased from the US government. In the US, the FCC has the right to regulate the public airwaves to ensure they are used for the good of the public. If AT&T had no role in the rejection, which I don't think they did since you can get a GV app for a Blackberry on AT&T, then the FCC has no authority in the matter.
4. I don't care about Google Voice in Australia or why it might not be there. I don't really care about Google Voice. The main reason I even responded to you in the first place was to try to illustrate how silly your statement that the if the FCC forces Apple to put the GV app in the App store that they should also force Google to offer the Google Voice Service to everyone on the planet with an iPhone. You keep ignoring these parts of my responses.
Google wants it's App forced on Apple's device by having the FCC, as a Government body representing the US government to step in.
Government (as in representing the people) controlling decisions made by free enterprises in a free market system equals socialism, after all as a consumer, you can buy a phone with a platform that supports this application, that is called competition.
That is where this game should be played, not with government intervention but in the marketplace.
So why should the US Government make decisions that should be the right of companies to make, it could set a dangerous precedent, who will decide which Apps should be forced on Apple in future?
What if spammers or spyware makers want to put Apps in the App store, will they be able to have the same rights as Google and be able to cry foul if their Apps are rejected, asked to be rewritten and resubmitted or whatever APPLE as the owner of the platform requires to allow an App into their store.
As to why Google probably won't offer this service in Australia.
We don't pay for incoming calls so Google would have to pay carrier termination fees, not the end user as is the case in the US.
Maybe they can support it by advertising like their other "free" services so who knows.
We also don't have long distance on our mobile networks there are only National and International calls, roaming really only exists when travelling overseas apart from a few rare exceptions.
btw how many Verizon phone's have GV Apps?
Maybe if an iPhone on AT&T doesn't suit your needs you should consider something else which does, as a consumer in a free market economy it is your decision to make, not the governments.
Delusional or fabricated.
No google is not trying to have their app forced on the iPhone. At best you could claim they trying force apple to allow users the choice to install it on their phones that they paid for. The rest if your post is based on your inaccurate premise and holds as much value.
I don't understand Apples real motivation in all of this, at all.
their motivation is easy. they don't want to have to provide support for someone using another interface on the phone when it doesn't work.
as for not telling the truth. I haven't seen a validated email or a voice recording of Phil and what he said to Google so it is equally possible they are fudging the truth.
also, was there any prior statement re: what you can and can't do with an app that says that creating an alt interface such as they are saying Google has is a no-no. I recall that Microsoft has recently been extremely clear they won't allow it with WinMo but what about Apple. Because if it is spelled out plainly in the rules and was when Google joined up, they really can't say anything. they might think the rule unfair but so far nothing has been said to disallow Apple legally from making any rule they want.
If it hasn't been accepted, then it's been rejected. It seems pretty black and white. Fudging the obvious by saying it is neither accepted nor rejected is just baloney.
yes and no. there is "rejected at this time, feel free to fix these issues and resubmit" and "rejected get the F out of here and don't come back"
Apple is claiming it was the former, Google the latter. google is also claiming that Apple has no right to the latter.
The FCC should back off and let the free market system decide, to jump in with government interference for the "good of the people" is socialist behaviour.
Moving on if the FCC gains the power to decide what Apple should and could include, who decides which Apps the FCC forces Apple to take?
Based on Google's GV App it looks like the vendor gets to make the decision hence an invasion of spammers and spyware makers, who may possibly seek damages if their software is not approved.
Under the net neutrality rules, will using Spyware blocking software constitute blocking "any application" from using a network.
The FCC should be very careful in how they word their proposed regulations.
...also force Google to offer the Google Voice Service to everyone on the planet with an iPhone. You keep ignoring these parts of my responses.
Delusional or fabricated.
No google is not trying to have their app forced on the iPhone. At best you could claim they trying force apple to allow users the choice to install it on their phones that they paid for. The rest if your post is based on your inaccurate premise and holds as much value.
No! Apple does not lie!
The iPod Touch doesn't have a camera because it's a gaming console, didn't you know that?! Don't believe anyone who says they had to pull that feature at the last minute!
since you choose to go there.
wrong. Apple at NO point ever said there was going to be a camera in the Touch. They never even said they were thinking about maybe perhaps one day putting a camera in the Touch. That they might have researched it, that they might have built a prototype of that idea is not the same as Phil or anyone else getting up on a stage or releasing a notice that there was going to be a camera in the Touch and then going "we changed our minds" at the event.
so no, they didn't lie. it just turns out that the rumor sites and the so called expert analysts were wrong this time
since you choose to go there.
wrong. Apple at NO point ever said there was going to be a camera in the Touch. They never even said they were thinking about maybe perhaps one day putting a camera in the Touch. That they might have researched it, that they might have built a prototype of that idea is not the same as Phil or anyone else getting up on a stage or releasing a notice that there was going to be a camera in the Touch and then going "we changed our minds" at the event.
so no, they didn't lie. it just turns out that the rumor sites and the so called expert analysts were wrong this time
Right - and you probably believe the blank space in the Touch is just an accident.
since you choose to go there.
wrong. Apple at NO point ever said there was going to be a camera in the Touch. They never even said they were thinking about maybe perhaps one day putting a camera in the Touch. That they might have researched it, that they might have built a prototype of that idea is not the same as Phil or anyone else getting up on a stage or releasing a notice that there was going to be a camera in the Touch and then going "we changed our minds" at the event.
so no, they didn't lie. it just turns out that the rumor sites and the so called expert analysts were wrong this time
Right - and you probably believe the blank space in the Touch is just happenstance.
yes and no. there is "rejected at this time, feel free to fix these issues and resubmit" and "rejected get the F out of here and don't come back"
How about, "we have received it and are reviewing it still. It is neither accepted or rejected".
Apple is claiming it was the former
No they are not.
Apple Answers FCC Questions
"Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. "
Just as you ignored the fact that my original post was in reply to someone who said that ALL iPhone owners should have access to this App, using people such as myself as an example as to why this idea is neither possible or desirable.
The FCC should back off and let the free market system decide, to jump in with government interference for the "good of the people" is socialist behaviour.
Moving on if the FCC gains the power to decide what Apple should and could include, who decides which Apps the FCC forces Apple to take?
Based on Google's GV App it looks like the vendor gets to make the decision hence an invasion of spammers and spyware makers, who may possibly seek damages if their software is not approved.
Under the net neutrality rules, will using Spyware blocking software constitute blocking "any application" from using a network.
The FCC should be very careful in how they word their proposed regulations.
So when I said this, i wasn't addressing your original "point"?
Nobody said that all iPhone users should have this app. People say that iPhone users should be able to install this app, if they choose. Big difference. Second, your assertion that if Apple is forced to approve this app that the FCC should force Google to provide the service to all iPhone users is just plain silly.
And your "point" is just semantics anyway. There are plenty of country specific apps. Even if someone did say that ALL iPhone owners should have access to this app, you don't think it is implied that they meant all iPhone owners who have access to Google Voice should have access to the app? You are arguing minutia. And if if the app was available worldwide, how would that be undesirable or detrimental to for you? See my previous DirectTV app example.
Again, you need learn what socialism means. Government regulation is not socialism. I'll post the link again: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=socialism
Are are really asking a "who polices the police" question? Seriously? If you want to know who the FCC answers to in the US, there is a wealth of information available on the internet that can explain it to you.
Again, you need to read what net neutrality means in the US. I'll break it down for you. Basically, it means that an ISP cannot prioritize certain traffic on their network over other traffic. So the cable company that also provides internet access cannot slow down streaming video in favor of their cable TV traffic. They cannot slow down Skype traffic is favor of their own VOIP solution. Basically, ISPs must treat all network traffic equally. That is it. It does not mean anyone can put anything they want on your network. It is not like leaving the door to your house open and throwing your locks away, which is how you are characterizing it. You can and will get kicked off of most ISPs in the US today if you are a spammer or are breaking other laws (i.e. fraud).
My issue is with Apple and the App Store approval process. It is my phone and I should be able to install whatever I want on it, just like I can on my Mac. Period.
this should help you get up to speed:
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=google+voice
Very clever, thanks for confirming that it truly doesn't do anything I can't already do with my cell-phone
phone number consolidation. Free long distance. free voice mail. Voice mail transcription.
All features available to users of the iPhone, with or without the native App. Apple banning it in no way prevents iPhone users from using the service. The app would have simply made it more convenient to use the service.
Thank you: As I understood it when I looked at the GV website: My t-mobile phone already has my number(s) consolidated, free long distance, I can forward calls from my (VoIP) work phone and have free voicemail. Oh: I can also assign different ring tones to work or personal callers ... anything important I missed?
Funny enough: This reminds me of the strange fact that only with the appearance of "apps" on the iPhone some people are recognizing available software tools, some of which have been available for a long time on Windows Mobile e.g. (there, I said the "W" word) ...
To me it is rootkit and many people who stated in this forum it is not, I am not taking their word for it, since the same people have been ranting about providing facts to our opinions.
Can anyone explain the reason why Google auto software updater is not rootkit, since I look over the internet and many people have stated different opinions.
To me it is rootkit and many people who stated in this forum it is not, I am not taking their word for it, since the same people have been ranting about providing facts to our opinions.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rootkit:
rootkit (plural rootkits)
1. (computing) A set of software tools used by a third party after gaining access to a computer system in order to conceal the altering of files, or processes being executed by the third party without the user's knowledge.
The reason some people say it is and some people say it isn't a rootkit is because some people believe that the Google Earth (important distinction) Auto Update program does more than Google claims it does and some don't.
If you believe the program sends more personal information back to Google than the Terms of Service state they do, then you would call it a rootkit.
So why doesn't Google modify their App so it meets Apples requirements as spelled out by Apple then resubmit it?
Nice dodge but your question does nothing to clarify you ridiculous assertion that google is asking the FCC to force GV onto the iPhone.
To your question...maybe google feels that would cripple the app and service.