I had an opinion, did not accuse, now who is putting words in my mouth. I asked the questions, since my research shows many people think it is and many do not.
Btw: you may say it is but you have not provide a link to explain wht it is not. At least other educate and do not rant and act like 5 yrs. Calling me out, this is internet, who cares, you can't see me.
my feelings are hate /sarcasm ..grow up
P.S. I thought there are some pretty good opinions from other people who are against Google Voice, but you would ignore them, since you think, you found someone you can win in argument, since this is not discussion from your ranting anyway.
You said:
Quote:
To me it is rootkit
So, you think it is a rootkit.
Then you ask:
Quote:
Can anyone explain the reason why Google auto software updater is not rootkit,
If you say you think someone has done something wrong, you are accusing them. If you need to then ask what that thing even means and how they may or may not have have done it, but still believe they have done it, it just shows a level of ignorance of the terminology.
Everyone has an opinion and I respect their opinions, if well founded or explained. But if their opinions are rooted in ignorance and they still cling to them when exposed as factually inaccurate, I stop respecting them.
Stop being so sensitive. You were wrong. You were shown why. It isn't ranting to explain it to you.
If you say you think someone has done something wrong, you are accusing them. If you need to then ask what that thing even means and how they may or may not have have done it, but still believe they have done it, it just shows a level of ignorance of the terminology.
Everyone has an opinion and I respect their opinions, if well founded or explained. But if their opinions are rooted in ignorance and they still cling to them when exposed as factually inaccurate, I stop respecting them.
Stop being so sensitive. You were wrong. You were shown why. It isn't ranting to explain it to you.
You are ranting, I already requested YOU to explain (read my previous post), since 'I think' it is rootkit, my opinion (not accusation). Your so prefect, you know everything right and don't have an opinion because your comments are fact.
Not sensitive, again, this is internet, why would i be sensitive, you arrogant, to think you effect my emotions. I was just stating my opinion and I learned from other people what is rootkit.
You read too much into my words, better you ask for clarification on their opinions, then go on rant, assuming what YOU think it means.
Anyway time to go, this reply has nothing to do with topic and I prefer other people provide some constructive opinions on the topic.
P.S. As I said I will watch from sidelines, let Google and Apple fight it out, in long run better for me consumer.
You are ranting, I already requested YOU to explain (read my previous post), since 'I think' it is rootkit, my opinion (not accusation). Your so prefect, you know everything right and don't have an opinion because your comments are fact.
If YOU present you opinion, or accusation, it is up to you to back it up. If someone disagrees, they can explain why, as I have done, but they don't really need to in a sensible debate. If I said something stupid, like I think iTunes is a virus, you might disagree, but it is hardly up to you to prove it is not a virus. If I make that dumb statement, it is up to me to explain why...perhaps even with facts. Hopefully, if I were to make that statement, I wouldn't have to follow up it by asking for someone to explain why it may or may not actually be a virus. I would look pretty silly in that case. So, if you think Google Earth or its updater is a rootkit, explain why.
This is the same hope I hold for anonymouse. That he will also make some intelligent attempt to back up his assertions. I don't expect he will be able to, though he may try with some flawed circular logic. One may always hope though.
Speaking of anonymouse,I have been to Home Depot and back, installed new blinds, had lunch, put my son down for a nap and completed a Triple S. Still not able to actually provide any insight into your positions and how they have any bearing on reality? Or in this case, any bearing on how they apply, in anyway, to Apple decision to block GV app? I guess we will just continue to wait. I'll check back in a bit.
Socialism according to the Oxford, you know from the country where the language originated, defines Socialism as state ownership OR regulation of private industry such as the people calling for the FCC to adopt a socialist stance and force Apple to bow to regulation and allow the GV App into their store.
Perhaps you should gaolbreak your iPhone or as a consumer chose something that suits your needs, as opposed to expecting a socialist government body to enforce your desires by Government regulation.
P.S. Wanna buy a Che Guevara T-Shirt.
You obviously don't understand it either. In order for a State to be Socialist, it must own the means of transportation, and control, or own much of the means of production as well. There's more to it than that of course, but Socialism is not just the isolated regulation we see. It's the total control, which we don't even come close to. Even countries such as France, which many think of as Socialist don't come close.
Communist countries were true Socialist countries, the only real ones. Even today's China only partly complies. North Korea is Socialist.
But, it doesn't by pass the payment schedule. All calls you make or receive through your GV acct on your iPhone still use your calling minutes. At best they avoid the long distance charges. But, you already can choose to use alternative long distance providers or to use calling cards or to use outbound call forwarding services, and they act exactly the same. if they don't violate the TOS in this way and are allowed, then GV doesn't violate them either.
You are saying that they ARE avoiding the terms of service. That's what I see as well.
You can't say "At best they avoid the long distance charges." That's skirting around the terms of service. It's not long distance they would be avoiding anyway. It's the international call service that they would be avoiding as far as I can see. That's not allowed.
Are you a lawyer? I don't think so, because those other services are different, and are under different provisions of the law.
Quote:
SKYPE and other VOIP aps avoided the voice service of the ATT network entirely. if it was allowed on 3G, then all calls would be over the data and AT&T would be cut out of the voice revenue. This is against the TOS and so SKYPE had to block 3G calling. This was a clear cut violation and so they were right to change their app. It also happens to be why the are involved with the FCC investigation into net neutrality, as they would like to run over the data networks, without restriction, but as they can with your ISP connection. They want the TOS changed so that they are not in violation. Different issue than GV.
Both Apple and AT&T explicitly stated how, and when VIOP would be allowed to work. They didn't think of this, so now it's become a question, and they're still thinking about it.
I don't agree it's a different issue. Right now, it seems to be part of the same issue.
Quote:
Edit: Also, Apple's own response to the the FCC said they welcomed google to do a GV webapp. As far as the calling features, this would duplicate the features of the native app for most intents. In both native and web, AT&T would stand to lose the same potential revenue of their long distance revenue. If the webapp provides the same features, and would therefore be also be in violation of AT&T's terms, if the native app is, then why would Apple encourage this route?
As I pointed out, Apple mentioned the terms of service in their reply as well.
Google could work this out so that is performs in a way so as to not bypass AT&Ts requirements. Would they want to? Likely not. If they did, then the main attraction would be gone, and that's likely why they resisted making any offers for a major change to the app.
Quote:
The webapp would lose out on some convenience through loss of direct integration, such as selecting a contact from your address book instead of having to manually enter the number, but this wouldn't make a difference to AT&T. And even this convenience can easily be regained, enabled by Apple themselves. Set you Mac to sync OTA with Google and with MobileMe (or through iTunes) and you now have access to your contacts in the webapp. Snow Leopard added direct syncing of your Mac to Google, or you can use third party syncing utils to do the same on Windows and Mac.
Apple can't control what happens in a web app, and neither can AT&T. Everyone knows that. So that might be the best solution for Google now. But apps loaded in the device are better than web apps, as they access the hardware to enhance functioning.
Did I say the FCC is being expected to act in a Socialist way by dictating what commercial decisions a company can make on behalf of the people i.e. state? Yes.
Maybe you'd better go check under your bed.
The FCC should butt out of Apple and the App store's business, what Apple does with it is should be based on commercial decisions by Apple as creators and owners of the App store and not some socialist ideal of what the government, via it's body the FCC, thinks is best for the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You obviously don't understand it either. In order for a State to be Socialist, it must own the means of transportation, and control, or own much of the means of production as well. There's more to it than that of course, but Socialism is not just the isolated regulation we see. It's the total control, which we don't even come close to. Even countries such as France, which many think of as Socialist don't come close.
Communist countries were true Socialist countries, the only real ones. Even today's China only partly complies. North Korea is Socialist.
Did I say the FCC is being expected to act in a Socialist way by dictating what commercial decisions a company can make on behalf of the people i.e. state? Yes.
The FCC should butt out of Apple and the App store's business, what Apple does with it is should be based on commercial decisions by Apple as creators and owners of the App store and not some socialist ideal of what the government, via it's body the FCC, thinks is best for the people.
Would you like to be deleted? Edit the stupid remark from your post.
The FCC can't be socialist if the government isn't. Regulating an industry doesn't make anything Socialist. Your particular right wing opinions doesn't make what you don't like what you think it is.
Which was precisly my point in the first place before being side-tracked by paranoid Americans who can't handle calling a spade a spade, what happens in Apples App store should be based on purely commercial motives and as long as they are not performing illegal acts is nobodies business but theirs.
If Google has issues they can take it up within the judicial system.
If people want to use GV with an iPhone they can use Safari to adjust it's settings, if they want to use a GV application there are alternative platforms available.
Apple is not stopping people from using GV if they want to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Would you like to be deleted? Edit the stupid remark from your post.
The FCC can't be socialist if the government isn't. Regulating an industry doesn't make anything Socialist. Your particular right wing opinions doesn't make what you don't like what you think it is.
Which was precisly my point in the first place before being side-tracked by paranoid Americans who can't handle calling a spade a spade, what happens in Apples App store should be based on purely commercial motives and as long as they are not performing illegal acts is nobodies business but theirs.
If Google has issues they can take it up within the judicial system.
If people want to use GV with an iPhone they can use Safari to adjust it's settings, if they want to use a GV application there are alternative platforms available.
Apple is not stopping people from using GV if they want to.
All countries, even those who are the most solidly Capitalist, regulate. That's what laws are, regulations.
What do we want, an open internet and phone system, or walled off areas that we can't get into without paying fees?
Do you want Comcast and others to tell you that if you use software they don't like, for legitimate uses, they will drop your spped? At what point can companies decide what they will and won't allow before you get upset about it?
I don't argue one way or the other about whether such an app should be allowed, just whether it looks, by the contracts, whether it will be allowed.
If the FCC wants to have such programs allowed on all systems, it's fine with me, as long as everyone must go along with it.
These regulating bodies were put into place to protect the consumer, not the companies they regulate. If something is good for us, and the companies won't allow it because they want to make more money from it, then they can petition the FCC as to why their will should be allowed. The public can do the same. It's called "hearings".
Somewhere down the line, a decision about it must be made. This is what is happening now. Monday we should get a decision about an open internet. I hope you're for that.
You are saying that they ARE avoiding the terms of service. That's what I see as well.
You can't say "At best they avoid the long distance charges." That's skirting around the terms of service. It's not long distance they would be avoiding anyway. It's the international call service that they would be avoiding as far as I can see. That's not allowed.
Are you a lawyer? I don't think so, because those other services are different, and are under different provisions of the law.
No, I am not saying it violates the ToS. As far as providing a way around using the AT&T long distance service or internation call service , the Google Voice service provides no more than any of the examples I provided. So, when I say "At best they avoid the long distance charges", they aren't skirting anything that other legal and allowed services provide.
An outbound call forwarding, where you call a local access number, then enter the number you want to reach,then connects you directly or calls you back. How does this differ, at all, from the Google Voice service? You are still making local calls using the AT&T network to a service that uses their own network to connect you for less than AT&T would charge. Calling cards would be similar. You say these would then be covered by some legal provisions...how could those not apply to Google providing an identical service for outbound call forwarding?
Would being a lawyer help me see the difference? Maybe. If you are a lawyer, then perhaps you could explain it. If the examples I gave do not violate the ToS, how could GV in this sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Both Apple and AT&T explicitly stated how, and when VIOP would be allowed to work. They didn't think of this, so now it's become a question, and they're still thinking about it.
I don't agree it's a different issue. Right now, it seems to be part of the same issue.
I just don't agree I guess. I see the SKYPE issue as a simple case of how AT&T allows the data network to be used. (I don't like ISPs of any kind, wireless or landline, deciding how I can use my data, but that is not relevant in this case) AT&T clearly prohibits VOIP on their data network, so SKYPE was forbidden to allow VOIP on AT&T data network.
GV call forwarding put none of the voice traffic on the data network. It is purely a voice call on AT&T's network a subject to whatever costs might apply. I can't see how the fact that the local number you are calling might end up forwarding you on to another number, perhaps over their own VOIP network, could be compared to the SKYPE situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
As I pointed out, Apple mentioned the terms of service in their reply as well.
But they very clearly do not mention AT&T's ToS in any way related to GV. They mention it only to explain any influence that AT&T has on app approval in general, as per contractual obligations to AT&T. Then they even more bluntly state that "Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter."
Unless Apple is boldly lying, there really is no question that AT&T and AT&Ts ToS has no impact on the status of GV app. If we take Apple at their word, then they themselves clearly rule out an AT&T ToS violation or contractual obligations to AT&T as even being factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Google could work this out so that is performs in a way so as to not bypass AT&Ts requirements. Would they want to? Likely not. If they did, then the main attraction would be gone, and that's likely why they resisted making any offers for a major change to the app.
Not just the main attraction. It would be stripping really the only reason for the app itself to exist..i.e. as a front end to the GV service. It would be a bit like asking a word processor app to just leave out the work processing. Or am IM app to leave out messaging. If the only way to to have the app approved is to remove the app, then what is the point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Apple can't control what happens in a web app, and neither can AT&T. Everyone knows that. So that might be the best solution for Google now. But apps loaded in the device are better than web apps, as they access the hardware to enhance functioning.
Well, they could certainly make it difficult for users...which is really all that banning the app itself accomplishes. Blocking local access numbers from their network and DNS blocking of GV address would disrupt the use of the service on their network...Worthless and easily worked around, but if their ToS actually bans the service, then yeah, they could make an impact. And with laws against circumventing technological barriers, they might even be able to take legal action against users that use the service...again pointless, but no less so than the banning of the app.
No, I am not saying it violates the ToS. As far as providing a way around using the AT&T long distance service or internation call service , the Google Voice service provides no more than any of the examples I provided. So, when I say "At best they avoid the long distance charges", they aren't skirting anything that other legal and allowed services provide.
By saying that it does violate the long distance payments, at least, you are saying it. You may not have used the words, but you did say it.
As I mentioned, those are different services that are allowed by law. This is not the same. It isn't a calling card, or a discount card. It required you to get another phone number among other things.
Quote:
An outbound call forwarding, where you call a local access number, then enter the number you want to reach,then connects you directly or calls you back. How does this differ, at all, from the Google Voice service? You are still making local calls using the AT&T network to a service that uses their own network to connect you for less than AT&T would charge. Calling cards would be similar. You say these would then be covered by some legal provisions...how could those not apply to Google providing an identical service for outbound call forwarding?
You need to get another phone number, plus other requirements that the other services don't use.
Quote:
Would being a lawyer help me see the difference? Maybe. If you are a lawyer, then perhaps you could explain it. If the examples I gave do not violate the ToS, how could GV in this sense?
I've already said that the law recognizes distinctions. This isn't (as yet) recognized. That's one of the reasons the FCC is looking into it.
Quote:
I just don't agree I guess. I see the SKYPE issue as a simple case of how AT&T allows the data network to be used. (I don't like ISPs of any kind, wireless or landline, deciding how I can use my data, but that is not relevant in this case) AT&T clearly prohibits VOIP on their data network, so SKYPE was forbidden to allow VOIP on AT&T data network.
GV call forwarding put none of the voice traffic on the data network. It is purely a voice call on AT&T's network a subject to whatever costs might apply. I can't see how the fact that the local number you are calling might end up forwarding you on to another number, perhaps over their own VOIP network, could be compared to the SKYPE situation.
Well, this would allow you to avoid paying the $1.29 a minute to the UK, for example. I have a plan that allows me to call for $0.99 a minute, but you wouldn't be paying that either. That would be using their network to avoid paying mandated fees, thus violating their terms of service in a way not allowed by law, which those calling cards are allowed to do, because those companies pay for network blocks at lower prices. Google isn't paying AT&T for those blocks.
Quote:
But they very clearly do not mention AT&T's ToS in any way related to GV. They mention it only to explain any influence that AT&T has on app approval in general, as per contractual obligations to AT&T. Then they even more bluntly state that "Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple?s decision-making process in this matter."
They mention the contractual obligations, then state that they alone are making the decision. That's fine as it goes. But you have to read between the lines.
If Apple has a contractual obligation to prevent users from violating the TOS, then why does Apple need to consult with AT&T when an app comes along that does? Apple would be able to decide that themselves. AT&T's advice isn't needed.
Quote:
Unless Apple is boldly lying, there really is no question that AT&T and AT&Ts ToS has no impact on the status of GV app. If we take Apple at their word, then they themselves clearly rule out an AT&T ToS violation or contractual obligations to AT&T as even being factor.
They don't have to lie. When I was in business, there were contracts that I had to adhere to. I had lawyers to make sure they were written properly. If I had to disallow something, then I did. I didn't have to run to my partners and consult every time. If the contract is that poorly written that you can't figure out what must be done, then that's not good.
Quote:
Not just the main attraction. It would be stripping really the only reason for the app itself to exist..i.e. as a front end to the GV service. It would be a bit like asking a word processor app to just leave out the work processing. Or am IM app to leave out messaging. If the only way to to have the app approved is to remove the app, then what is the point?
There are other features that could be used, but yeah, that's basically what I meant.
Quote:
Well, they could certainly make it difficult for users...which is really all that banning the app itself accomplishes. Blocking local access numbers from their network and DNS blocking of GV address would disrupt the use of the service on their network...Worthless and easily worked around, but if their ToS actually bans the service, then yeah, they could make an impact. And with laws against circumventing technological barriers, they might even be able to take legal action against users that use the service...again pointless, but no less so than the banning of the app.
This all comes down to how open should networks and software platforms be?
There must be some flexibility, but companies can't be allowed to cut too much off either.
Computers grew up with the concept of unlimited software. but these new phone platforms did not, because of network control of the early systems, and now, also with the phone manufacturers control.
There will be some (un)happy medium reached within a few years as this all evolves. We need to give it some time.
By saying that it does violate the long distance payments, at least, you are saying it. You may not have used the words, but you did say it.
As I mentioned, those are different services that are allowed by law. This is not the same. It isn't a calling card, or a discount card. It required you to get another phone number among other things.
How are they different?
Forget the calling cards. Outbound call forwarding services function fine and are allowed, whether on your cell phone or home phone. They aren't necessarily buying blocks of minutes from AT&T. They could be buying it elsewhere or perhaps using their own VOIP backend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You need to get another phone number, plus other requirements that the other services don't use.
You may need a new number, but that only is used for inbound calls...which AT&T wouldn't be charging you long distance for, and so would noy be avoiding the payment schedule. The outbound only uses your google number as your personal access number or VM portal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I've already said that the law recognizes distinctions. This isn't (as yet) recognized. That's one of the reasons the FCC is looking into it.
But until this post, you haven't mentioned what any of those distinctions could possibly be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Well, this would allow you to avoid paying the $1.29 a minute to the UK, for example. I have a plan that allows me to call for $0.99 a minute, but you wouldn't be paying that either. That would be using their network to avoid paying mandated fees, thus violating their terms of service in a way not allowed by law, which those calling cards are allowed to do, because those companies pay for network blocks at lower prices. Google isn't paying AT&T for those blocks.
Perhaps the calling card companies buy blocks from the carriers. Outbound call forwarding service wouldn't need to. They would simply need to source the wholesale rates. Better yet, if they had their own lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
They mention the contractual obligations, then state that they alone are making the decision. That's fine as it goes. But you have to read between the lines.
I would be the first to say that you do indeed have to read between the lines. Apple left themselves a hell of a lot of wiggle room in their statement. But I don't think they blatantly lied. If they felt in anyway that AT&T's ToS influenced any part of their decision on GV, then they openly and blatantly lied.
Their two statements, 1)Abiding AT&Ts ToS is a contractual obligation in all of their app approvals and 2) that none of their contractual obligations to AT&T applied to their decision on GV, don't leave a lot of space between the lines to read. Since not allowing apps that violate AT&T ToS is a contractual obligation and since none of their contractual obligations (including not violating the ToS) were a factor in the decision to not approve the app, then they only way the ToS were applied is if Apple lied in their statement. There is no ambiguity in this case. No vagueness. No wiggle room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If Apple has a contractual obligation to prevent users from violating the TOS, then why does Apple need to consult with AT&T when an app comes along that does? Apple would be able to decide that themselves. AT&T's advice isn't needed.
Well, off the top of me head, I would say for any clarifications they might need at a given time. Some apps might be ambiguous or Apple might not know with certainty if it would pass spec. Or when AT&T updates the ToS, Apple might like to keep abreast of coming changes. Or maybe Apple believes in an app so much, they might visit AT&T to see if they would consider a pass on a single app.
There are many reasons Apple might seek AT&T's input on some apps. A contract that obligates Apple to abide by AT&T's ToS in no way invalidates any of the reasons they might ask for input.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
They don't have to lie. When I was in business, there were contracts that I had to adhere to. I had lawyers to make sure they were written properly. If I had to disallow something, then I did. I didn't have to run to my partners and consult every time. If the contract is that poorly written that you can't figure out what must be done, then that's not good.
As above, there are many reasons for them to interact, even with a well written contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
This all comes down to how open should networks and software platforms be?
There must be some flexibility, but companies can't be allowed to cut too much off either.
Computers grew up with the concept of unlimited software. but these new phone platforms did not, because of network control of the early systems, and now, also with the phone manufacturers control.
There will be some (un)happy medium reached within a few years as this all evolves. We need to give it some time.
Totally agree. I just don't agree that AT&T is to blame this time (and I hate carriers). I take Apple at their word on that point.
I think this was totally Apple's decision and was made only for what they feel is their best interests and that AT&T was not involved nor were AT&T's interests a part of Apple's decision in this issue.
Edit: Also, if the ToS were involved, why is Line2 now approved and for sale on the app store? Seems to be about identical to GV, as service and app. In fact, the developer is the guy that did the now removed GV Mobile. Additionally, a GV app is available for the BlackBerry. AT&T sells BlackBerries, don't they?
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.
Wow, that means all my scientific papers I submitted which are not yet accepted are rejected too then? Come to think of it, also the ones I am still writing and may write in the future! Ouch. Bizarre comment.
As I understand it, many communications companies are required to sell their bandwidth to competitors.
Apple is not in the business of selling bandwidth, that's AT & T. Apple is in the business of selling hardware and software and it has the right to decide what they wish to sell in their own shop. Am I the only one who thinks this whole argument is a bit overhyped?
Wow, that means all my scientific papers I submitted which are not yet accepted are rejected too then? Come to think of it, also the ones I am still writing and may write in the future! Ouch. Bizarre comment.
If the papers you have submitted are returned to you with big red letters stamped across saying "Not Accepted" or "Not Approved", then yeah, you might actually take that for what it means.
As for the papers you have yet to submit or write being a similar analogy...well, wow, that is some great logic. Your scientific papers must be a joy to read with logic like that. Actually, perhaps you could assume they would be rejected.
Apple is not in the business of selling bandwidth, that's AT & T. Apple is in the business of selling hardware and software and it has the right to decide what they wish to sell in their own shop. Am I the only one who thinks this whole argument is a bit overhyped?
Bas
The cellular industry, both service side and devices, is a regulated industry. The FCC is simply looking into how far this regulation needs to go in order to spur competition. If they take it too far, they hurt innovation. With no regulation, consumers are often the ones that lose out.
Apple has the right to sell what they want in their store. But their store is the only legitimate venue for getting apps on the iPhone platform...there is no competition or alternative for buying or obtaining apps for the iPhone. You could buy an Android or pre or BB, as some here resort to stating, but those alternatives don't give you access to apps for the iPhone. If there was any competitor or alternative for getting apps for the iPhone, then any decision Apple made for which apps they choose to sell would not come under scrutiny at all. If Apple says no, a competitor might say yes.
So then, looking at the iPhone itself, if you buy one, should you be able to install and run what you choose, with in the law, on your device? It is your phone. Bought and paid. Your cell service is a service that requires following some agreed upon terms of service for continued service. The OS is a copyrighted work that requires you to agree to certain terms of use. But the phone is yours. Should the terms of the service and/or copyright be able to be used to determine how you are allowed to use your own property?
I love my iPhone. I wouldn't opt for an alternative, regardless of if Apple approves apps I want or not. I simply want them to encourage competition within the app store. I want them to enable developers to freely enhance the experience, as they have done so well so far, without these actions. Their arguments for not approving the GV apps don't make sense, unless you assume users are idiots and will be confused by an alternative interface. That is really the only argument they put forward in their response (ignoring the tinfoil hat wearing, men in black seeing, Google Truthers and their paranoia)
If the papers you have submitted are returned to you with big red letters stamped across saying "Not Accepted" or "Not Approved", then yeah, you might actually take that for what it means.
I'm not aware of any scientific journals that follow this particular practice.
However, this is a nearly perfect analogy. What often happens is that one's paper may not be accepted or rejected outright, but that reviewers will suggest (read: require) changes, additions or deletions to the content of the paper for it to be accepted. Sometimes the researcher will make those changes, sometimes they may refuse to make the suggested changes because they feel it compromises the validity of their work, and sometimes it may be impractical for them to carry out the necessary work required by the suggested changes.
You know the saying... You F**K with the bull you get the horns....
Somebody just stuck it to the bull.... Now, the horns.
Now guess who's apps go into the trash the second they are received. OR Maybe Apple will show the little guys a little more attention and keep to the first come first served policy we all agreed to. Not sure how a Google app can be reviewed in less than a week when others are in review for over a month.
And ya know I could care less for Google and it's spyware.
The cellular industry, both service side and devices, is a regulated industry. The FCC is simply looking into how far this regulation needs to go in order to spur competition. If they take it too far, they hurt innovation. With no regulation, consumers are often the ones that lose out.
Apple has the right to sell what they want in their store. But their store is the only legitimate venue for getting apps on the iPhone platform...there is no competition or alternative for buying or obtaining apps for the iPhone. You could buy an Android or pre or BB, as some here resort to stating, but those alternatives don't give you access to apps for the iPhone. If there was any competitor or alternative for getting apps for the iPhone, then any decision Apple made for which apps they choose to sell would not come under scrutiny at all. If Apple says no, a competitor might say yes.
So then, looking at the iPhone itself, if you buy one, should you be able to install and run what you choose, with in the law, on your device? It is your phone. Bought and paid. Your cell service is a service that requires following some agreed upon terms of service for continued service. The OS is a copyrighted work that requires you to agree to certain terms of use. But the phone is yours. Should the terms of the service and/or copyright be able to be used to determine how you are allowed to use your own property?
I love my iPhone. I wouldn't opt for an alternative, regardless of if Apple approves apps I want or not. I simply want them to encourage competition within the app store. I want them to enable developers to freely enhance the experience, as they have done so well so far, without these actions. Their arguments for not approving the GV apps don't make sense, unless you assume users are idiots and will be confused by an alternative interface. That is really the only argument they put forward in their response (ignoring the tinfoil hat wearing, men in black seeing, Google Truthers and their paranoia)
You can. Jailbreak it. Of course that goes against Apple's TOS that you agreed to. BUT YOU DO HAVE THE CHOICE. But since you did it your way don't ask for help, because in doing the JB you have TAKEN CONTROL as you stated on a device you bought.
If I purchase a weed whacker and convert it to a blender (have done) and it breaks should that be covered under warranty? NO. It's mine and I did what I wanted to with it but in doing so I broke the terms of the warranty. Same Thing.
So yea, your right and have the right to jailbreak it. But in doing so don't ask for help when it breaks.
EDIT: Sorry, just re-read it and it sounds like I'm raggin the poster. I'm not so don't take it that way. I'm just adding to the argument.
Apple is not in the business of selling bandwidth, that's AT & T. Apple is in the business of selling hardware and software and it has the right to decide what they wish to sell in their own shop. Am I the only one who thinks this whole argument is a bit overhyped?
Bas
Right there with ya. You can Jailbreak the iPhone and install the Google Voice app right now. It's out there.
In releasing it that way Apple may decide Google is a rouge company in their eyes. But hey, it's their eyes. You don't see Dell's in an Apple store... It's their store, it's their decision. You don't like it? Release with another company offering their own App store for the iPhone.
Comments
I had an opinion, did not accuse, now who is putting words in my mouth. I asked the questions, since my research shows many people think it is and many do not.
Btw: you may say it is but you have not provide a link to explain wht it is not. At least other educate and do not rant and act like 5 yrs. Calling me out, this is internet, who cares, you can't see me.
my feelings are hate /sarcasm ..grow up
P.S. I thought there are some pretty good opinions from other people who are against Google Voice, but you would ignore them, since you think, you found someone you can win in argument, since this is not discussion from your ranting anyway.
You said:
To me it is rootkit
So, you think it is a rootkit.
Then you ask:
Can anyone explain the reason why Google auto software updater is not rootkit,
If you say you think someone has done something wrong, you are accusing them. If you need to then ask what that thing even means and how they may or may not have have done it, but still believe they have done it, it just shows a level of ignorance of the terminology.
Everyone has an opinion and I respect their opinions, if well founded or explained. But if their opinions are rooted in ignorance and they still cling to them when exposed as factually inaccurate, I stop respecting them.
Stop being so sensitive. You were wrong. You were shown why. It isn't ranting to explain it to you.
You said:
So, you think it is a rootkit.
Then you ask:
If you say you think someone has done something wrong, you are accusing them. If you need to then ask what that thing even means and how they may or may not have have done it, but still believe they have done it, it just shows a level of ignorance of the terminology.
Everyone has an opinion and I respect their opinions, if well founded or explained. But if their opinions are rooted in ignorance and they still cling to them when exposed as factually inaccurate, I stop respecting them.
Stop being so sensitive. You were wrong. You were shown why. It isn't ranting to explain it to you.
You are ranting, I already requested YOU to explain (read my previous post), since 'I think' it is rootkit, my opinion (not accusation). Your so prefect, you know everything right and don't have an opinion because your comments are fact.
Not sensitive, again, this is internet, why would i be sensitive, you arrogant, to think you effect my emotions. I was just stating my opinion and I learned from other people what is rootkit.
You read too much into my words, better you ask for clarification on their opinions, then go on rant, assuming what YOU think it means.
Anyway time to go, this reply has nothing to do with topic and I prefer other people provide some constructive opinions on the topic.
P.S. As I said I will watch from sidelines, let Google and Apple fight it out, in long run better for me consumer.
You are ranting, I already requested YOU to explain (read my previous post), since 'I think' it is rootkit, my opinion (not accusation). Your so prefect, you know everything right and don't have an opinion because your comments are fact.
If YOU present you opinion, or accusation, it is up to you to back it up. If someone disagrees, they can explain why, as I have done, but they don't really need to in a sensible debate. If I said something stupid, like I think iTunes is a virus, you might disagree, but it is hardly up to you to prove it is not a virus. If I make that dumb statement, it is up to me to explain why...perhaps even with facts. Hopefully, if I were to make that statement, I wouldn't have to follow up it by asking for someone to explain why it may or may not actually be a virus. I would look pretty silly in that case. So, if you think Google Earth or its updater is a rootkit, explain why.
This is the same hope I hold for anonymouse. That he will also make some intelligent attempt to back up his assertions. I don't expect he will be able to, though he may try with some flawed circular logic. One may always hope though.
Speaking of anonymouse,I have been to Home Depot and back, installed new blinds, had lunch, put my son down for a nap and completed a Triple S. Still not able to actually provide any insight into your positions and how they have any bearing on reality? Or in this case, any bearing on how they apply, in anyway, to Apple decision to block GV app? I guess we will just continue to wait. I'll check back in a bit.
Terribly sorry mate, I can't trust a dictionary which can't even spell colour correctly.
http://www.askoxford.com:80/concise_...ialism?view=uk
Socialism according to the Oxford, you know from the country where the language originated, defines Socialism as state ownership OR regulation of private industry such as the people calling for the FCC to adopt a socialist stance and force Apple to bow to regulation and allow the GV App into their store.
Perhaps you should gaolbreak your iPhone or as a consumer chose something that suits your needs, as opposed to expecting a socialist government body to enforce your desires by Government regulation.
P.S. Wanna buy a Che Guevara T-Shirt.
You obviously don't understand it either. In order for a State to be Socialist, it must own the means of transportation, and control, or own much of the means of production as well. There's more to it than that of course, but Socialism is not just the isolated regulation we see. It's the total control, which we don't even come close to. Even countries such as France, which many think of as Socialist don't come close.
Communist countries were true Socialist countries, the only real ones. Even today's China only partly complies. North Korea is Socialist.
But, it doesn't by pass the payment schedule. All calls you make or receive through your GV acct on your iPhone still use your calling minutes. At best they avoid the long distance charges. But, you already can choose to use alternative long distance providers or to use calling cards or to use outbound call forwarding services, and they act exactly the same. if they don't violate the TOS in this way and are allowed, then GV doesn't violate them either.
You are saying that they ARE avoiding the terms of service. That's what I see as well.
You can't say "At best they avoid the long distance charges." That's skirting around the terms of service. It's not long distance they would be avoiding anyway. It's the international call service that they would be avoiding as far as I can see. That's not allowed.
Are you a lawyer? I don't think so, because those other services are different, and are under different provisions of the law.
SKYPE and other VOIP aps avoided the voice service of the ATT network entirely. if it was allowed on 3G, then all calls would be over the data and AT&T would be cut out of the voice revenue. This is against the TOS and so SKYPE had to block 3G calling. This was a clear cut violation and so they were right to change their app. It also happens to be why the are involved with the FCC investigation into net neutrality, as they would like to run over the data networks, without restriction, but as they can with your ISP connection. They want the TOS changed so that they are not in violation. Different issue than GV.
Both Apple and AT&T explicitly stated how, and when VIOP would be allowed to work. They didn't think of this, so now it's become a question, and they're still thinking about it.
I don't agree it's a different issue. Right now, it seems to be part of the same issue.
Edit: Also, Apple's own response to the the FCC said they welcomed google to do a GV webapp. As far as the calling features, this would duplicate the features of the native app for most intents. In both native and web, AT&T would stand to lose the same potential revenue of their long distance revenue. If the webapp provides the same features, and would therefore be also be in violation of AT&T's terms, if the native app is, then why would Apple encourage this route?
As I pointed out, Apple mentioned the terms of service in their reply as well.
Google could work this out so that is performs in a way so as to not bypass AT&Ts requirements. Would they want to? Likely not. If they did, then the main attraction would be gone, and that's likely why they resisted making any offers for a major change to the app.
The webapp would lose out on some convenience through loss of direct integration, such as selecting a contact from your address book instead of having to manually enter the number, but this wouldn't make a difference to AT&T. And even this convenience can easily be regained, enabled by Apple themselves. Set you Mac to sync OTA with Google and with MobileMe (or through iTunes) and you now have access to your contacts in the webapp. Snow Leopard added direct syncing of your Mac to Google, or you can use third party syncing utils to do the same on Windows and Mac.
Apple can't control what happens in a web app, and neither can AT&T. Everyone knows that. So that might be the best solution for Google now. But apps loaded in the device are better than web apps, as they access the hardware to enhance functioning.
Did I say the FCC is being expected to act in a Socialist way by dictating what commercial decisions a company can make on behalf of the people i.e. state? Yes.
Maybe you'd better go check under your bed.
The FCC should butt out of Apple and the App store's business, what Apple does with it is should be based on commercial decisions by Apple as creators and owners of the App store and not some socialist ideal of what the government, via it's body the FCC, thinks is best for the people.
You obviously don't understand it either. In order for a State to be Socialist, it must own the means of transportation, and control, or own much of the means of production as well. There's more to it than that of course, but Socialism is not just the isolated regulation we see. It's the total control, which we don't even come close to. Even countries such as France, which many think of as Socialist don't come close.
Communist countries were true Socialist countries, the only real ones. Even today's China only partly complies. North Korea is Socialist.
Did I say the US a socialist State? No.
Did I say the FCC is being expected to act in a Socialist way by dictating what commercial decisions a company can make on behalf of the people i.e. state? Yes.
The FCC should butt out of Apple and the App store's business, what Apple does with it is should be based on commercial decisions by Apple as creators and owners of the App store and not some socialist ideal of what the government, via it's body the FCC, thinks is best for the people.
Would you like to be deleted? Edit the stupid remark from your post.
The FCC can't be socialist if the government isn't. Regulating an industry doesn't make anything Socialist. Your particular right wing opinions doesn't make what you don't like what you think it is.
If Google has issues they can take it up within the judicial system.
If people want to use GV with an iPhone they can use Safari to adjust it's settings, if they want to use a GV application there are alternative platforms available.
Apple is not stopping people from using GV if they want to.
Would you like to be deleted? Edit the stupid remark from your post.
The FCC can't be socialist if the government isn't. Regulating an industry doesn't make anything Socialist. Your particular right wing opinions doesn't make what you don't like what you think it is.
Which was precisly my point in the first place before being side-tracked by paranoid Americans who can't handle calling a spade a spade, what happens in Apples App store should be based on purely commercial motives and as long as they are not performing illegal acts is nobodies business but theirs.
If Google has issues they can take it up within the judicial system.
If people want to use GV with an iPhone they can use Safari to adjust it's settings, if they want to use a GV application there are alternative platforms available.
Apple is not stopping people from using GV if they want to.
All countries, even those who are the most solidly Capitalist, regulate. That's what laws are, regulations.
What do we want, an open internet and phone system, or walled off areas that we can't get into without paying fees?
Do you want Comcast and others to tell you that if you use software they don't like, for legitimate uses, they will drop your spped? At what point can companies decide what they will and won't allow before you get upset about it?
I don't argue one way or the other about whether such an app should be allowed, just whether it looks, by the contracts, whether it will be allowed.
If the FCC wants to have such programs allowed on all systems, it's fine with me, as long as everyone must go along with it.
These regulating bodies were put into place to protect the consumer, not the companies they regulate. If something is good for us, and the companies won't allow it because they want to make more money from it, then they can petition the FCC as to why their will should be allowed. The public can do the same. It's called "hearings".
Somewhere down the line, a decision about it must be made. This is what is happening now. Monday we should get a decision about an open internet. I hope you're for that.
You are saying that they ARE avoiding the terms of service. That's what I see as well.
You can't say "At best they avoid the long distance charges." That's skirting around the terms of service. It's not long distance they would be avoiding anyway. It's the international call service that they would be avoiding as far as I can see. That's not allowed.
Are you a lawyer? I don't think so, because those other services are different, and are under different provisions of the law.
No, I am not saying it violates the ToS. As far as providing a way around using the AT&T long distance service or internation call service , the Google Voice service provides no more than any of the examples I provided. So, when I say "At best they avoid the long distance charges", they aren't skirting anything that other legal and allowed services provide.
An outbound call forwarding, where you call a local access number, then enter the number you want to reach,then connects you directly or calls you back. How does this differ, at all, from the Google Voice service? You are still making local calls using the AT&T network to a service that uses their own network to connect you for less than AT&T would charge. Calling cards would be similar. You say these would then be covered by some legal provisions...how could those not apply to Google providing an identical service for outbound call forwarding?
Would being a lawyer help me see the difference? Maybe. If you are a lawyer, then perhaps you could explain it. If the examples I gave do not violate the ToS, how could GV in this sense?
Both Apple and AT&T explicitly stated how, and when VIOP would be allowed to work. They didn't think of this, so now it's become a question, and they're still thinking about it.
I don't agree it's a different issue. Right now, it seems to be part of the same issue.
I just don't agree I guess. I see the SKYPE issue as a simple case of how AT&T allows the data network to be used. (I don't like ISPs of any kind, wireless or landline, deciding how I can use my data, but that is not relevant in this case) AT&T clearly prohibits VOIP on their data network, so SKYPE was forbidden to allow VOIP on AT&T data network.
GV call forwarding put none of the voice traffic on the data network. It is purely a voice call on AT&T's network a subject to whatever costs might apply. I can't see how the fact that the local number you are calling might end up forwarding you on to another number, perhaps over their own VOIP network, could be compared to the SKYPE situation.
As I pointed out, Apple mentioned the terms of service in their reply as well.
But they very clearly do not mention AT&T's ToS in any way related to GV. They mention it only to explain any influence that AT&T has on app approval in general, as per contractual obligations to AT&T. Then they even more bluntly state that "Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter."
Unless Apple is boldly lying, there really is no question that AT&T and AT&Ts ToS has no impact on the status of GV app. If we take Apple at their word, then they themselves clearly rule out an AT&T ToS violation or contractual obligations to AT&T as even being factor.
Google could work this out so that is performs in a way so as to not bypass AT&Ts requirements. Would they want to? Likely not. If they did, then the main attraction would be gone, and that's likely why they resisted making any offers for a major change to the app.
Not just the main attraction. It would be stripping really the only reason for the app itself to exist..i.e. as a front end to the GV service. It would be a bit like asking a word processor app to just leave out the work processing. Or am IM app to leave out messaging. If the only way to to have the app approved is to remove the app, then what is the point?
Apple can't control what happens in a web app, and neither can AT&T. Everyone knows that. So that might be the best solution for Google now. But apps loaded in the device are better than web apps, as they access the hardware to enhance functioning.
Well, they could certainly make it difficult for users...which is really all that banning the app itself accomplishes. Blocking local access numbers from their network and DNS blocking of GV address would disrupt the use of the service on their network...Worthless and easily worked around, but if their ToS actually bans the service, then yeah, they could make an impact. And with laws against circumventing technological barriers, they might even be able to take legal action against users that use the service...again pointless, but no less so than the banning of the app.
No, I am not saying it violates the ToS. As far as providing a way around using the AT&T long distance service or internation call service , the Google Voice service provides no more than any of the examples I provided. So, when I say "At best they avoid the long distance charges", they aren't skirting anything that other legal and allowed services provide.
By saying that it does violate the long distance payments, at least, you are saying it. You may not have used the words, but you did say it.
As I mentioned, those are different services that are allowed by law. This is not the same. It isn't a calling card, or a discount card. It required you to get another phone number among other things.
An outbound call forwarding, where you call a local access number, then enter the number you want to reach,then connects you directly or calls you back. How does this differ, at all, from the Google Voice service? You are still making local calls using the AT&T network to a service that uses their own network to connect you for less than AT&T would charge. Calling cards would be similar. You say these would then be covered by some legal provisions...how could those not apply to Google providing an identical service for outbound call forwarding?
You need to get another phone number, plus other requirements that the other services don't use.
Would being a lawyer help me see the difference? Maybe. If you are a lawyer, then perhaps you could explain it. If the examples I gave do not violate the ToS, how could GV in this sense?
I've already said that the law recognizes distinctions. This isn't (as yet) recognized. That's one of the reasons the FCC is looking into it.
I just don't agree I guess. I see the SKYPE issue as a simple case of how AT&T allows the data network to be used. (I don't like ISPs of any kind, wireless or landline, deciding how I can use my data, but that is not relevant in this case) AT&T clearly prohibits VOIP on their data network, so SKYPE was forbidden to allow VOIP on AT&T data network.
GV call forwarding put none of the voice traffic on the data network. It is purely a voice call on AT&T's network a subject to whatever costs might apply. I can't see how the fact that the local number you are calling might end up forwarding you on to another number, perhaps over their own VOIP network, could be compared to the SKYPE situation.
Well, this would allow you to avoid paying the $1.29 a minute to the UK, for example. I have a plan that allows me to call for $0.99 a minute, but you wouldn't be paying that either. That would be using their network to avoid paying mandated fees, thus violating their terms of service in a way not allowed by law, which those calling cards are allowed to do, because those companies pay for network blocks at lower prices. Google isn't paying AT&T for those blocks.
But they very clearly do not mention AT&T's ToS in any way related to GV. They mention it only to explain any influence that AT&T has on app approval in general, as per contractual obligations to AT&T. Then they even more bluntly state that "Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple?s decision-making process in this matter."
They mention the contractual obligations, then state that they alone are making the decision. That's fine as it goes. But you have to read between the lines.
If Apple has a contractual obligation to prevent users from violating the TOS, then why does Apple need to consult with AT&T when an app comes along that does? Apple would be able to decide that themselves. AT&T's advice isn't needed.
Unless Apple is boldly lying, there really is no question that AT&T and AT&Ts ToS has no impact on the status of GV app. If we take Apple at their word, then they themselves clearly rule out an AT&T ToS violation or contractual obligations to AT&T as even being factor.
They don't have to lie. When I was in business, there were contracts that I had to adhere to. I had lawyers to make sure they were written properly. If I had to disallow something, then I did. I didn't have to run to my partners and consult every time. If the contract is that poorly written that you can't figure out what must be done, then that's not good.
Not just the main attraction. It would be stripping really the only reason for the app itself to exist..i.e. as a front end to the GV service. It would be a bit like asking a word processor app to just leave out the work processing. Or am IM app to leave out messaging. If the only way to to have the app approved is to remove the app, then what is the point?
There are other features that could be used, but yeah, that's basically what I meant.
Well, they could certainly make it difficult for users...which is really all that banning the app itself accomplishes. Blocking local access numbers from their network and DNS blocking of GV address would disrupt the use of the service on their network...Worthless and easily worked around, but if their ToS actually bans the service, then yeah, they could make an impact. And with laws against circumventing technological barriers, they might even be able to take legal action against users that use the service...again pointless, but no less so than the banning of the app.
This all comes down to how open should networks and software platforms be?
There must be some flexibility, but companies can't be allowed to cut too much off either.
Computers grew up with the concept of unlimited software. but these new phone platforms did not, because of network control of the early systems, and now, also with the phone manufacturers control.
There will be some (un)happy medium reached within a few years as this all evolves. We need to give it some time.
By saying that it does violate the long distance payments, at least, you are saying it. You may not have used the words, but you did say it.
As I mentioned, those are different services that are allowed by law. This is not the same. It isn't a calling card, or a discount card. It required you to get another phone number among other things.
How are they different?
Forget the calling cards. Outbound call forwarding services function fine and are allowed, whether on your cell phone or home phone. They aren't necessarily buying blocks of minutes from AT&T. They could be buying it elsewhere or perhaps using their own VOIP backend.
You need to get another phone number, plus other requirements that the other services don't use.
You may need a new number, but that only is used for inbound calls...which AT&T wouldn't be charging you long distance for, and so would noy be avoiding the payment schedule. The outbound only uses your google number as your personal access number or VM portal.
I've already said that the law recognizes distinctions. This isn't (as yet) recognized. That's one of the reasons the FCC is looking into it.
But until this post, you haven't mentioned what any of those distinctions could possibly be.
Well, this would allow you to avoid paying the $1.29 a minute to the UK, for example. I have a plan that allows me to call for $0.99 a minute, but you wouldn't be paying that either. That would be using their network to avoid paying mandated fees, thus violating their terms of service in a way not allowed by law, which those calling cards are allowed to do, because those companies pay for network blocks at lower prices. Google isn't paying AT&T for those blocks.
Perhaps the calling card companies buy blocks from the carriers. Outbound call forwarding service wouldn't need to. They would simply need to source the wholesale rates. Better yet, if they had their own lines.
They mention the contractual obligations, then state that they alone are making the decision. That's fine as it goes. But you have to read between the lines.
I would be the first to say that you do indeed have to read between the lines. Apple left themselves a hell of a lot of wiggle room in their statement. But I don't think they blatantly lied. If they felt in anyway that AT&T's ToS influenced any part of their decision on GV, then they openly and blatantly lied.
Their two statements, 1)Abiding AT&Ts ToS is a contractual obligation in all of their app approvals and 2) that none of their contractual obligations to AT&T applied to their decision on GV, don't leave a lot of space between the lines to read. Since not allowing apps that violate AT&T ToS is a contractual obligation and since none of their contractual obligations (including not violating the ToS) were a factor in the decision to not approve the app, then they only way the ToS were applied is if Apple lied in their statement. There is no ambiguity in this case. No vagueness. No wiggle room.
If Apple has a contractual obligation to prevent users from violating the TOS, then why does Apple need to consult with AT&T when an app comes along that does? Apple would be able to decide that themselves. AT&T's advice isn't needed.
Well, off the top of me head, I would say for any clarifications they might need at a given time. Some apps might be ambiguous or Apple might not know with certainty if it would pass spec. Or when AT&T updates the ToS, Apple might like to keep abreast of coming changes. Or maybe Apple believes in an app so much, they might visit AT&T to see if they would consider a pass on a single app.
There are many reasons Apple might seek AT&T's input on some apps. A contract that obligates Apple to abide by AT&T's ToS in no way invalidates any of the reasons they might ask for input.
They don't have to lie. When I was in business, there were contracts that I had to adhere to. I had lawyers to make sure they were written properly. If I had to disallow something, then I did. I didn't have to run to my partners and consult every time. If the contract is that poorly written that you can't figure out what must be done, then that's not good.
As above, there are many reasons for them to interact, even with a well written contract.
This all comes down to how open should networks and software platforms be?
There must be some flexibility, but companies can't be allowed to cut too much off either.
Computers grew up with the concept of unlimited software. but these new phone platforms did not, because of network control of the early systems, and now, also with the phone manufacturers control.
There will be some (un)happy medium reached within a few years as this all evolves. We need to give it some time.
Totally agree. I just don't agree that AT&T is to blame this time (and I hate carriers). I take Apple at their word on that point.
I think this was totally Apple's decision and was made only for what they feel is their best interests and that AT&T was not involved nor were AT&T's interests a part of Apple's decision in this issue.
Edit: Also, if the ToS were involved, why is Line2 now approved and for sale on the app store? Seems to be about identical to GV, as service and app. In fact, the developer is the guy that did the now removed GV Mobile. Additionally, a GV app is available for the BlackBerry. AT&T sells BlackBerries, don't they?
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.
Wow, that means all my scientific papers I submitted which are not yet accepted are rejected too then? Come to think of it, also the ones I am still writing and may write in the future! Ouch. Bizarre comment.
As I understand it, many communications companies are required to sell their bandwidth to competitors.
Apple is not in the business of selling bandwidth, that's AT & T. Apple is in the business of selling hardware and software and it has the right to decide what they wish to sell in their own shop. Am I the only one who thinks this whole argument is a bit overhyped?
Bas
Wow, that means all my scientific papers I submitted which are not yet accepted are rejected too then? Come to think of it, also the ones I am still writing and may write in the future! Ouch. Bizarre comment.
If the papers you have submitted are returned to you with big red letters stamped across saying "Not Accepted" or "Not Approved", then yeah, you might actually take that for what it means.
As for the papers you have yet to submit or write being a similar analogy...well, wow, that is some great logic. Your scientific papers must be a joy to read with logic like that. Actually, perhaps you could assume they would be rejected.
Apple is not in the business of selling bandwidth, that's AT & T. Apple is in the business of selling hardware and software and it has the right to decide what they wish to sell in their own shop. Am I the only one who thinks this whole argument is a bit overhyped?
Bas
The cellular industry, both service side and devices, is a regulated industry. The FCC is simply looking into how far this regulation needs to go in order to spur competition. If they take it too far, they hurt innovation. With no regulation, consumers are often the ones that lose out.
Apple has the right to sell what they want in their store. But their store is the only legitimate venue for getting apps on the iPhone platform...there is no competition or alternative for buying or obtaining apps for the iPhone. You could buy an Android or pre or BB, as some here resort to stating, but those alternatives don't give you access to apps for the iPhone. If there was any competitor or alternative for getting apps for the iPhone, then any decision Apple made for which apps they choose to sell would not come under scrutiny at all. If Apple says no, a competitor might say yes.
So then, looking at the iPhone itself, if you buy one, should you be able to install and run what you choose, with in the law, on your device? It is your phone. Bought and paid. Your cell service is a service that requires following some agreed upon terms of service for continued service. The OS is a copyrighted work that requires you to agree to certain terms of use. But the phone is yours. Should the terms of the service and/or copyright be able to be used to determine how you are allowed to use your own property?
I love my iPhone. I wouldn't opt for an alternative, regardless of if Apple approves apps I want or not. I simply want them to encourage competition within the app store. I want them to enable developers to freely enhance the experience, as they have done so well so far, without these actions. Their arguments for not approving the GV apps don't make sense, unless you assume users are idiots and will be confused by an alternative interface. That is really the only argument they put forward in their response (ignoring the tinfoil hat wearing, men in black seeing, Google Truthers and their paranoia)
If the papers you have submitted are returned to you with big red letters stamped across saying "Not Accepted" or "Not Approved", then yeah, you might actually take that for what it means.
I'm not aware of any scientific journals that follow this particular practice.
However, this is a nearly perfect analogy. What often happens is that one's paper may not be accepted or rejected outright, but that reviewers will suggest (read: require) changes, additions or deletions to the content of the paper for it to be accepted. Sometimes the researcher will make those changes, sometimes they may refuse to make the suggested changes because they feel it compromises the validity of their work, and sometimes it may be impractical for them to carry out the necessary work required by the suggested changes.
Somebody just stuck it to the bull.... Now, the horns.
Now guess who's apps go into the trash the second they are received. OR Maybe Apple will show the little guys a little more attention and keep to the first come first served policy we all agreed to. Not sure how a Google app can be reviewed in less than a week when others are in review for over a month.
And ya know I could care less for Google and it's spyware.
The cellular industry, both service side and devices, is a regulated industry. The FCC is simply looking into how far this regulation needs to go in order to spur competition. If they take it too far, they hurt innovation. With no regulation, consumers are often the ones that lose out.
Apple has the right to sell what they want in their store. But their store is the only legitimate venue for getting apps on the iPhone platform...there is no competition or alternative for buying or obtaining apps for the iPhone. You could buy an Android or pre or BB, as some here resort to stating, but those alternatives don't give you access to apps for the iPhone. If there was any competitor or alternative for getting apps for the iPhone, then any decision Apple made for which apps they choose to sell would not come under scrutiny at all. If Apple says no, a competitor might say yes.
So then, looking at the iPhone itself, if you buy one, should you be able to install and run what you choose, with in the law, on your device? It is your phone. Bought and paid. Your cell service is a service that requires following some agreed upon terms of service for continued service. The OS is a copyrighted work that requires you to agree to certain terms of use. But the phone is yours. Should the terms of the service and/or copyright be able to be used to determine how you are allowed to use your own property?
I love my iPhone. I wouldn't opt for an alternative, regardless of if Apple approves apps I want or not. I simply want them to encourage competition within the app store. I want them to enable developers to freely enhance the experience, as they have done so well so far, without these actions. Their arguments for not approving the GV apps don't make sense, unless you assume users are idiots and will be confused by an alternative interface. That is really the only argument they put forward in their response (ignoring the tinfoil hat wearing, men in black seeing, Google Truthers and their paranoia)
You can. Jailbreak it. Of course that goes against Apple's TOS that you agreed to. BUT YOU DO HAVE THE CHOICE. But since you did it your way don't ask for help, because in doing the JB you have TAKEN CONTROL as you stated on a device you bought.
If I purchase a weed whacker and convert it to a blender (have done) and it breaks should that be covered under warranty? NO. It's mine and I did what I wanted to with it but in doing so I broke the terms of the warranty. Same Thing.
So yea, your right and have the right to jailbreak it. But in doing so don't ask for help when it breaks.
EDIT: Sorry, just re-read it and it sounds like I'm raggin the poster. I'm not so don't take it that way. I'm just adding to the argument.
Apple is not in the business of selling bandwidth, that's AT & T. Apple is in the business of selling hardware and software and it has the right to decide what they wish to sell in their own shop. Am I the only one who thinks this whole argument is a bit overhyped?
Bas
Right there with ya. You can Jailbreak the iPhone and install the Google Voice app right now. It's out there.
In releasing it that way Apple may decide Google is a rouge company in their eyes. But hey, it's their eyes. You don't see Dell's in an Apple store... It's their store, it's their decision. You don't like it? Release with another company offering their own App store for the iPhone.
Period, the END.