AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.
If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.
To all the dullards out there saying "be careful what you wish for" to Google, you might want to take that to heart.
Because when you start involving the airways, it no longer continues to be "a private issue" when there are clear and obvious regulated interests at stake. And lying to the FCC further proves that a wrong is being committed.
Sure, if this were an app that didn't have a telephony component to it, the FCC would have no business here. But, Google Voice DOES deal with communications, and it's pretty obvious they have a stake in this issue, even as they try to pass the control to Apple which isn't as strongly and clearly regulated as AT&T in this case.
Apple does not have to make Google Voice available on the iPhone. The reason the FCC is investigating, is that it wants to be sure that AT&T are not stopping Apple from offering Google Voice. But the FCC has no power at all if Apple does not want to offer it.
AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.
If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.
To all the dullards out there saying "be careful what you wish for" to Google, you might want to take that to heart.
-kpluck
To the consumer, Google is a Telco. I am going to send and receive calls via their front-end app. Oh wait....many of my calls will be blocked. Let's call them an iTelco (Incompetent Telco).
AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.
If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.
To all the dullards out there saying "be careful what you wish for" to Google, you might want to take that to heart.
-kpluck
This has nothing to do with AT&T involvement, but due to Google Voice blocking rural calls, which is no no. If you want to compete in someones space, you have to play by the rules. Google blocking rural calls is not being fair to consumer, nothing to do with AT&T.
Btw Vonage has been approved for iPhone and you can use Skype and there are using internet to make calls, not the same way as Google Voice, but still offer services.
AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.
So, at what point does a company offering telephony services become a phone company?
Quote:
If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.
I still don't see why Apple have to approve ANY application they don't want on the App Store.
Just as Apple can't be forced to sell products through the Retail Stores, why should they be forced to have App in the App Store?
I don't see anyone forcing Apple to sell Google Android Phones in the Retail stores, so why do they have to carry a Google App?
Online Stores are not covered by some extra rules.
Nor does Apple have the accept every application that is submitted to it.
They have made the rules, they provide the software fro free, they choose what is made available.
All developers know that when they sign up to be a developer, so what is the issue?
I think the argument centers on the fact that Google can provide a handset via many different outlets, including directly from them if they wish. So if Apple doesn't sell it then it doesn't matter to the consumer. OTOH, the only way you can get an application for your iPhone is through Apple.
This is not to say Apple should approve Google Voice for iPhones but a recognition that they are the one and only gatekeeper.
Google's not a carrier. Offering free outbound calls doesn't make it a carrier. There's plenty of regulation on dial-back and dial-around services that make this clear. GV's a dial-back - but being primarily controlled via the web rather than touchtone.
I think the issue is that they provide free outbound calls - and they can only do it to places that are within their budget (whatever that might be).
There's already a mechanism in place in GV to charge for non-free calls. Currently these are all international calls (BTW some of the best rates I've seen to the few places I track int'l call rates to). I'd guess that the easiest way to handle this inside the current app would be, instead of blocking, to put up a message "that telco charges $0.nn/min, which we have to bill to your account - do you want to make this non-free call?
Yes, if you have a cellphone with all-USA free dialing plan, then the cell operator ends up eating this - but they are getting money from you. GV is free.
If you're using GV from a cellphone with this plan, then, hopefully, you'd be smart enough to tell GV "no" and just dial the number yourself.
If the person you're calling has gone to the trouble/expense of getting access to the interent and installing a sip-phone (or is running a sip phone app on their PC) you can call that for free (except, again, if you're on a cell, you're paying minutes)
I'm not saying that it's unreasonable for rural carriers to charge more. It's more expensive to support subscribers when they're miles apart. These higher rural costs are something that "ma bell" used to cover - by charging us all inflated long distance rates. Ma Bell is gone, the cost differential's still there - but there aren't inflated LD rates to pay for it any more...
Maybe I'm just a naturally suspicious person but when someone claims in their very first post on here that they "track int'l call rates", I kinda start to wonder what the agenda is.
I still don't see why Apple have to approve ANY application they don't want on the App Store.
Just as Apple can't be forced to sell products through the Retail Stores, why should they be forced to have App in the App Store?
I don't see anyone forcing Apple to sell Google Android Phones in the Retail stores, so why do they have to carry a Google App?
Online Stores are not covered by some extra rules.
The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there. With the App Store, if Apple rejects your application for any reason, even if they were selling it for MONTHS prior to pulling it, that's the end of the line. You can't take your application and sell it somewhere else. The App Store is the only way to sell that iPhone application.
Now you can argue that Apple doesn't have to sell a Google Voice application, but come on. They had Voice Central and GV Mobile in the store for months before pulling it for "duplicating functionality." At the same time, VOiP applications like Skype that offer SMS and Unlimited calling are still there. Not to mention both the Google Voice applications were pulled on the same exact day, while no other dialer was removed.
Not sure how this applies to GV or Google. Google is not a Telco... And definitely not a carrier as AT&T implies.
not at the moment. but that is what ATT and these other folks are charging. that Google is acting like a Telco but not wanting to follow the same rules.
so now Google has to show how their service is not the same as a Telco, or they have to drop this 'but only in areas where it is cheap for us to provide the service' game. if it is that expensive then perhaps they should charge for it. if everyone pays $5 a year that would pay for at least some of the cost. and it's not a crazy amount to pay.
Nor does Apple have the accept every application that is submitted to it.
They have made the rules, they provide the software fro free, they choose what is made available.
I agree that it is Apple's store so they should be able to sell (or not sell) what they want. What I am curious about though is just exactly what software is free? I am not aware of ANY! Maybe I missed something.
The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there. With the App Store, if Apple rejects your application for any reason, even if they were selling it for MONTHS prior to pulling it, that's the end of the line. You can't take your application and sell it somewhere else. The App Store is the only way to sell that iPhone application.
Now you can argue that Apple doesn't have to sell a Google Voice application, but come on. They had Voice Central and GV Mobile in the store for months before pulling it for "duplicating functionality." At the same time, VOiP applications like Skype that offer SMS and Unlimited calling are still there. Not to mention both the Google Voice applications were pulled on the same exact day, while no other dialer was removed.
Those risks are, I believe, part of the terms of the developer program. Clearly the other GV apps slipped under the radar, but further review caused them to be pulled from the store. And these aren't the only apps that have been pulled after further review.
Google has its own platform it can release GV on. If people want it badly enough, they can switch to Android, or use the promised iPhone web app from Google. (Apple did not induce anyone to buy an iPhone with a promise of a GV app.) There are also a number of other platforms that seem welcoming of GV as well, so the iPhone is not the only option for them, nor is Apple "leveraging" the iPhone to hold or gain a monopoly over some market.
Quite simply, Apple doesn't want Google subverting it's platform with a GV app that turns the iPhone into an Android clone. As they said in their response to the FCC, they have invested considerable resources into designing the user experience on the iPhone, and they aren't interested in Apps that make the iPhone essentially the same as any other phone for telephony.
Although the sooner Google buys up AT&T, the better.
It could happen, but only under fire sale prices. If a major carrier goes ti*s up then I could see Google making such an acquisition but it exposes google to much stricter regulations then I think Google wants to deal with. They certainly have the cash to make a play at a major telco/wireless company already, and certainly seem to have a desire to get into the biz. So what is stopping them? Most likely its the threat of increased regulation.
First off, this is not Apple news, this is Google news. Ugh.
Second off, only half of the text here pertains to the actual information. The other half is re-hashing of your own articles... we know where to find all that stuff.
Third off, it seems that this is becoming a "Bash anything that is non-Apple".
Anyhow, now that rants are done: I like Google, but they too should play by the same rules as other telecoms and allow rural connections. I also think Apple should let GV into their Apps. The more they do stupid stuff like this, the less I'm inclined to do business with them.
As of this weekend, my house will finally be Macintosh free! Yes!
First off, this is not Apple news, this is Google news. Ugh.
Second off, only half of the text here pertains to the actual information. The other half is re-hashing of your own articles... we know where to find all that stuff.
Third off, it seems that this is becoming a "Bash anything that is non-Apple".
Anyhow, now that rants are done: I like Google, but they too should play by the same rules as other telecoms and allow rural connections. I also think Apple should let GV into their Apps. The more they do stupid stuff like this, the less I'm inclined to do business with them.
As of this weekend, my house will finally be Macintosh free! Yes!
Those risks are, I believe, part of the terms of the developer program. Clearly the other GV apps slipped under the radar, but further review caused them to be pulled from the store. And these aren't the only apps that have been pulled after further review.
Or they were approved because they were deemed not to be a problem. 'Further review' is just bullshit. Only once the formal GV app was submitted were they suddenly considered a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Google has its own platform it can release GV on. If people want it badly enough, they can switch to Android, or use the promised iPhone web app from Google. (Apple did not induce anyone to buy an iPhone with a promise of a GV app.) There are also a number of other platforms that seem welcoming of GV as well, so the iPhone is not the only option for them, nor is Apple "leveraging" the iPhone to hold or gain a monopoly over some market.
Except there third party apps were not from google. They were custom third party front ends for the GV service. Just as a webapp, sanctioned by Apple, would simply provide another front end for the GV service. And just like the numerous other apps that provide front ends for similar functions and services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Quite simply, Apple doesn't want Google subverting it's platform with a GV app that turns the iPhone into an Android clone. As they said in their response to the FCC, they have invested considerable resources into designing the user experience on the iPhone, and they aren't interested in Apps that make the iPhone essentially the same as any other phone for telephony.
So it was the Google app itself that was the problem? Makes sense given the number of other apps that provide similar functionality I guess. So, then why bar the third party apps that just provided an interface for the GV service? If it isn't the app and is instead the service that is the problem, that would explain why they kicked out the third party GV apps. At that point it becomes politics, as they allow other apps that provide similar functions. Some provide almost identical functionality (one from the creators of GV Mobile) and they are allowed. So then, it is ok for other companies to 'subvert' the platform?
Obviously your are wrong again about then not being 'interested in Apps that make the iPhone essentially the same as any other phone for telephony' as they have approved other apps that would do just that...just not with the reach and perhaps capabilities of Google.
At this point in the discussion, you ought to be reaching for your canned google-monster paranoia responses.
Comments
I totally agree...
you seem to agree to any comments that against a competitor of Apple. Maybe you should get an opinion of your own.
Aha Google! You wanted fairness, you got it.
I don't think so.
AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.
If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.
To all the dullards out there saying "be careful what you wish for" to Google, you might want to take that to heart.
-kpluck
Because when you start involving the airways, it no longer continues to be "a private issue" when there are clear and obvious regulated interests at stake. And lying to the FCC further proves that a wrong is being committed.
Sure, if this were an app that didn't have a telephony component to it, the FCC would have no business here. But, Google Voice DOES deal with communications, and it's pretty obvious they have a stake in this issue, even as they try to pass the control to Apple which isn't as strongly and clearly regulated as AT&T in this case.
Apple does not have to make Google Voice available on the iPhone. The reason the FCC is investigating, is that it wants to be sure that AT&T are not stopping Apple from offering Google Voice. But the FCC has no power at all if Apple does not want to offer it.
I don't think so.
AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.
If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.
To all the dullards out there saying "be careful what you wish for" to Google, you might want to take that to heart.
-kpluck
To the consumer, Google is a Telco. I am going to send and receive calls via their front-end app. Oh wait....many of my calls will be blocked. Let's call them an iTelco (Incompetent Telco).
I don't think so.
AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.
If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.
To all the dullards out there saying "be careful what you wish for" to Google, you might want to take that to heart.
-kpluck
This has nothing to do with AT&T involvement, but due to Google Voice blocking rural calls, which is no no. If you want to compete in someones space, you have to play by the rules. Google blocking rural calls is not being fair to consumer, nothing to do with AT&T.
Btw Vonage has been approved for iPhone and you can use Skype and there are using internet to make calls, not the same way as Google Voice, but still offer services.
AT&T's argument basically amounts to "If you are competing with some of our services you should be regulated like us." which to me is BS. Google is not a wireless carrier. They are not a phone company even though they may offer phone-like services over the internet.
So, at what point does a company offering telephony services become a phone company?
If AT&T gets their way, anyone offering services over the internet that replicate the functionality of a phone could be regulated and taxed like a phone utility.
Why shouldn't they be?
I still don't see why Apple have to approve ANY application they don't want on the App Store.
Just as Apple can't be forced to sell products through the Retail Stores, why should they be forced to have App in the App Store?
I don't see anyone forcing Apple to sell Google Android Phones in the Retail stores, so why do they have to carry a Google App?
Online Stores are not covered by some extra rules.
Nor does Apple have the accept every application that is submitted to it.
They have made the rules, they provide the software fro free, they choose what is made available.
All developers know that when they sign up to be a developer, so what is the issue?
I think the argument centers on the fact that Google can provide a handset via many different outlets, including directly from them if they wish. So if Apple doesn't sell it then it doesn't matter to the consumer. OTOH, the only way you can get an application for your iPhone is through Apple.
This is not to say Apple should approve Google Voice for iPhones but a recognition that they are the one and only gatekeeper.
Google's not a carrier. Offering free outbound calls doesn't make it a carrier. There's plenty of regulation on dial-back and dial-around services that make this clear. GV's a dial-back - but being primarily controlled via the web rather than touchtone.
I think the issue is that they provide free outbound calls - and they can only do it to places that are within their budget (whatever that might be).
There's already a mechanism in place in GV to charge for non-free calls. Currently these are all international calls (BTW some of the best rates I've seen to the few places I track int'l call rates to). I'd guess that the easiest way to handle this inside the current app would be, instead of blocking, to put up a message "that telco charges $0.nn/min, which we have to bill to your account - do you want to make this non-free call?
Yes, if you have a cellphone with all-USA free dialing plan, then the cell operator ends up eating this - but they are getting money from you. GV is free.
If you're using GV from a cellphone with this plan, then, hopefully, you'd be smart enough to tell GV "no" and just dial the number yourself.
If the person you're calling has gone to the trouble/expense of getting access to the interent and installing a sip-phone (or is running a sip phone app on their PC) you can call that for free (except, again, if you're on a cell, you're paying minutes)
I'm not saying that it's unreasonable for rural carriers to charge more. It's more expensive to support subscribers when they're miles apart. These higher rural costs are something that "ma bell" used to cover - by charging us all inflated long distance rates. Ma Bell is gone, the cost differential's still there - but there aren't inflated LD rates to pay for it any more...
Maybe I'm just a naturally suspicious person but when someone claims in their very first post on here that they "track int'l call rates", I kinda start to wonder what the agenda is.
I still don't see why Apple have to approve ANY application they don't want on the App Store.
Just as Apple can't be forced to sell products through the Retail Stores, why should they be forced to have App in the App Store?
I don't see anyone forcing Apple to sell Google Android Phones in the Retail stores, so why do they have to carry a Google App?
Online Stores are not covered by some extra rules.
The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there. With the App Store, if Apple rejects your application for any reason, even if they were selling it for MONTHS prior to pulling it, that's the end of the line. You can't take your application and sell it somewhere else. The App Store is the only way to sell that iPhone application.
Now you can argue that Apple doesn't have to sell a Google Voice application, but come on. They had Voice Central and GV Mobile in the store for months before pulling it for "duplicating functionality." At the same time, VOiP applications like Skype that offer SMS and Unlimited calling are still there. Not to mention both the Google Voice applications were pulled on the same exact day, while no other dialer was removed.
Not sure how this applies to GV or Google. Google is not a Telco... And definitely not a carrier as AT&T implies.
Although the sooner Google buys up AT&T, the better.
Not sure how this applies to GV or Google. Google is not a Telco... And definitely not a carrier as AT&T implies.
not at the moment. but that is what ATT and these other folks are charging. that Google is acting like a Telco but not wanting to follow the same rules.
so now Google has to show how their service is not the same as a Telco, or they have to drop this 'but only in areas where it is cheap for us to provide the service' game. if it is that expensive then perhaps they should charge for it. if everyone pays $5 a year that would pay for at least some of the cost. and it's not a crazy amount to pay.
Nor does Apple have the accept every application that is submitted to it.
They have made the rules, they provide the software fro free, they choose what is made available.
I agree that it is Apple's store so they should be able to sell (or not sell) what they want. What I am curious about though is just exactly what software is free? I am not aware of ANY! Maybe I missed something.
The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there. With the App Store, if Apple rejects your application for any reason, even if they were selling it for MONTHS prior to pulling it, that's the end of the line. You can't take your application and sell it somewhere else. The App Store is the only way to sell that iPhone application.
Now you can argue that Apple doesn't have to sell a Google Voice application, but come on. They had Voice Central and GV Mobile in the store for months before pulling it for "duplicating functionality." At the same time, VOiP applications like Skype that offer SMS and Unlimited calling are still there. Not to mention both the Google Voice applications were pulled on the same exact day, while no other dialer was removed.
Those risks are, I believe, part of the terms of the developer program. Clearly the other GV apps slipped under the radar, but further review caused them to be pulled from the store. And these aren't the only apps that have been pulled after further review.
Google has its own platform it can release GV on. If people want it badly enough, they can switch to Android, or use the promised iPhone web app from Google. (Apple did not induce anyone to buy an iPhone with a promise of a GV app.) There are also a number of other platforms that seem welcoming of GV as well, so the iPhone is not the only option for them, nor is Apple "leveraging" the iPhone to hold or gain a monopoly over some market.
Quite simply, Apple doesn't want Google subverting it's platform with a GV app that turns the iPhone into an Android clone. As they said in their response to the FCC, they have invested considerable resources into designing the user experience on the iPhone, and they aren't interested in Apps that make the iPhone essentially the same as any other phone for telephony.
Is that what you mean?
How is Apple stopping Google from doing that?
btw YOU CAN USE GV ON THE iPHONE without the App, it is not essential for GV use.
The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there...
Although the sooner Google buys up AT&T, the better.
It could happen, but only under fire sale prices. If a major carrier goes ti*s up then I could see Google making such an acquisition but it exposes google to much stricter regulations then I think Google wants to deal with. They certainly have the cash to make a play at a major telco/wireless company already, and certainly seem to have a desire to get into the biz. So what is stopping them? Most likely its the threat of increased regulation.
Second off, only half of the text here pertains to the actual information. The other half is re-hashing of your own articles... we know where to find all that stuff.
Third off, it seems that this is becoming a "Bash anything that is non-Apple".
Anyhow, now that rants are done: I like Google, but they too should play by the same rules as other telecoms and allow rural connections. I also think Apple should let GV into their Apps. The more they do stupid stuff like this, the less I'm inclined to do business with them.
As of this weekend, my house will finally be Macintosh free! Yes!
First off, this is not Apple news, this is Google news. Ugh.
Second off, only half of the text here pertains to the actual information. The other half is re-hashing of your own articles... we know where to find all that stuff.
Third off, it seems that this is becoming a "Bash anything that is non-Apple".
Anyhow, now that rants are done: I like Google, but they too should play by the same rules as other telecoms and allow rural connections. I also think Apple should let GV into their Apps. The more they do stupid stuff like this, the less I'm inclined to do business with them.
As of this weekend, my house will finally be Macintosh free! Yes!
Congratulations! Welcome to a world with choice.
As of this weekend, my house will finally be Macintosh free! Yes!
Enjoy your time at WindowsInsider or GoogleInsider or wherever you decide to start hanging out.
Such as Android, Symbian, RIM, WinMo etc?
Yes, because an iPhone app would run on those platforms...oh wait.
Is that what you mean?
Obviously it wasn't what he meant.
btw YOU CAN USE GV ON THE iPHONE without the App, it is not essential for GV use.
Exactly. So, then why ban it?
Those risks are, I believe, part of the terms of the developer program. Clearly the other GV apps slipped under the radar, but further review caused them to be pulled from the store. And these aren't the only apps that have been pulled after further review.
Or they were approved because they were deemed not to be a problem. 'Further review' is just bullshit. Only once the formal GV app was submitted were they suddenly considered a problem.
Google has its own platform it can release GV on. If people want it badly enough, they can switch to Android, or use the promised iPhone web app from Google. (Apple did not induce anyone to buy an iPhone with a promise of a GV app.) There are also a number of other platforms that seem welcoming of GV as well, so the iPhone is not the only option for them, nor is Apple "leveraging" the iPhone to hold or gain a monopoly over some market.
Except there third party apps were not from google. They were custom third party front ends for the GV service. Just as a webapp, sanctioned by Apple, would simply provide another front end for the GV service. And just like the numerous other apps that provide front ends for similar functions and services.
Quite simply, Apple doesn't want Google subverting it's platform with a GV app that turns the iPhone into an Android clone. As they said in their response to the FCC, they have invested considerable resources into designing the user experience on the iPhone, and they aren't interested in Apps that make the iPhone essentially the same as any other phone for telephony.
So it was the Google app itself that was the problem? Makes sense given the number of other apps that provide similar functionality I guess. So, then why bar the third party apps that just provided an interface for the GV service? If it isn't the app and is instead the service that is the problem, that would explain why they kicked out the third party GV apps. At that point it becomes politics, as they allow other apps that provide similar functions. Some provide almost identical functionality (one from the creators of GV Mobile) and they are allowed. So then, it is ok for other companies to 'subvert' the platform?
Obviously your are wrong again about then not being 'interested in Apps that make the iPhone essentially the same as any other phone for telephony' as they have approved other apps that would do just that...just not with the reach and perhaps capabilities of Google.
At this point in the discussion, you ought to be reaching for your canned google-monster paranoia responses.