I dare say that if AT&T is really behind the pulling of GV from the App store, they will simply use their power as gatekeeper to "shape" webtraffic to the GV web app. Isn't this why we need net neutrality legislation?
The wouldn't need Apple's help. They can build everything into it themselves. But notifications are os based. A web app would not be a native app, by definition. It would run in Safari. It can't receive push updates. All apple could do would be to allow the app that would then use the APN API to receive notifications.
Unfortunately, the nature of web apps and of notifications precludes any way for the web app to receive notifications. Unless there is a native app component to 'receive' the notification. And in that case, they have just approved the app they denied.
Google could just make a "Google notifications" app that functions for notifications for all Google services. They couldn't deny an app like that as it wouldn't specifically be breaking the part of the AT&T contract that requires Apple to remove the app in the first place.
Apple isn't banning the app, they are meeting the requirements of the AT&T agreement to minimise bandwidth sucking apps that duplicate or compete with AT&T's "services."
No, if the app accesses web-based content, Apple now automatically classifies them as for adults only.
Not true actually. "unfiltered" web-based content only.
Only those developers stupid enough to build in a web-component, but not use Safari get hit with that.
Safari has built in parental controls. If the app is a full-fledged web app running in Safari, it's not subject to anything because the user already has access to parental controls for Safari.
Google could just make a "Google notifications" app that functions for notifications for all Google services. They couldn't deny an app like that as it wouldn't specifically be breaking the part of the AT&T contract that requires Apple to remove the app in the first place.
Apple isn't banning the app, they are meeting the requirements of the AT&T agreement to minimise bandwidth sucking apps that duplicate or compete with AT&T's "services."
I tend to agree with all of this. Except the reasoning for Apple denying the app. Apple stated they had a reason. They said it duplicated functionality already present. They didn't explain what this meant or why other apps that individually do each of the functions GV offers were allowed to stay.
It may very well have actually been AT&T's doing or Apple acting to comply with their contract. But they have not clarified this point and have actually confused it by giving the developers differing reasons.
Could be either. Unfortunately, you do see (especially here) many that do actually look to Apple for guidance on things what is good and it bad. It could very well have been sincere.
google is providing everything for free right now.
us lazy humans like free stuff.
other competitors providing the infrastructure for the free stuff have the obvious cost of running and maintaining the infrastructure, so they will eventually lose the competition - for mapping, and voice calls, and email, and office documents, and operating systems, and phones.
but we like free stuff....
people will sell their souls for free stuff....
but once we are all hooked....
and google is the only one left standing....
they will start to collect...
and google government will already know everything about you and you won't be able to escape!!!
remember google is not your friend - they are just the best disguised enemy
yes but... #1 Native apps can have push notification, which for Google Voice (Voice Mail and SMS) is absolutely critical. #2 Native apps are faster than web apps.
So... sorry but a kludged together web app sucks for GV...
Seriously... as much as I LOVE my iPhone, if this doesn't get resolved my next phone will likely run Android.
Skype doesn't have push notification however you can link it to IM+, Skype also only works over wifi, maybe if Google Voice was changed to only work over wifi then maybe it could be accepted.
Which Android phone you wanna get?
They are ok if you like lots of Google and Amazon things.
I've got an HTC Magic here people (mainly WinMo people) say you can't tell the difference between a 65k colour screen and a 16 million colour screen but as I hold it side by side with my iPhone you can definately see a difference.
I guess the same people would say there's no difference between the Mona Lisa and a cornflakes packet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb510
yes but... #1 Native apps can have push notification, which for Google Voice (Voice Mail and SMS) is absolutely critical. #2 Native apps are faster than web apps.
So... sorry but a kludged together web app sucks for GV...
Seriously... as much as I LOVE my iPhone, if this doesn't get resolved my next phone will likely run Android.
Edit:-
I tried downloading Google Voice from the Android market it doesn't even work.
Google Voice invitation request
Please leave your name and email, and we'll invite you as soon as Google Voice becomes available. If you left us your email address previously on the GrandCentral site, you don't need to resubmit it here.
Name *
Email *
This email address will only be used to inform you about when you will be able to sign up and not be collected or used for any marketing purposes.
Please note that Google Voice is only available for sign up in the US.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Google Voice app take over the dialer on other phones so that all calls are routed through the Google Voice number (otherwise when you call other people a different number would come up)? If so, this wouldn't have been possible on the iPhone and so the app would have been seriously crippled as a native app anyway.
Have been a Google Voice customer since before it was called Google Voice. It is an awesome service. Try it if you can get an invite.
Apple blocking the Google GV app is absolutely ridiculous and pulling Sean Kovacs GV Mobile app all but unforgivable. Apple ticked him off so much that he modified his app to run on jailbroken iPhones and is giving it away for free which is sort of unfortunate for him.
The next app that I want or need that has been blocked or pulled and it's jailbreak city for me and I won't think twice. Apple is really firing up a bunch of people unnecessarily with their app store heavy handed attitude. Is their goal now to tell Google and the rest of the world (including users) to just bend over and take it or otherwise screw off?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Google Voice app take over the dialer on other phones so that all calls are routed through the Google Voice number (otherwise when you call other people a different number would come up)? If so, this wouldn't have been possible on the iPhone and so the app would have been seriously crippled as a native app anyway.
Not completely sure I understand your question but with Google Voice inbound calls routed to users choice of phone(s) display users choice of either callers caller id info or users GV number. Outbound calls made via GV service display users GV number on called party's caller id. When you initiate an outbound call GV calls both your party and your selected device(s) and sort of conferences them together. I use GV Mobile (bought it before it was pulled from the app store) and it works great. My understanding is the Google GV app that was blocked would have functioned much the same way as GV Mobile.
Apple are very likely legally bound by their contract with AT&T to make 'reasonable' efforts to restrict voice apps. I'm sure Apple per se would like a Google Voice iPhone app
Furthermore, Apple should hand over the policing of IP routing of VOIP to AT&T and allow any and all VOIP apps.
Let AT&T block VOIP on their routers - Apple need to get out of being AT&T's doormen very quicky!
I imagine the FCC are going to rule exactly this...
Will they also rule on Google's restrictive practice of the service only being available to those with 'invites', which will make these Apps work as advertised?
Google is the one with the restrictions here, if you download the App and it is unusable because Google doesn't see fit to provide the service then of course Apple has the right to remove an App which could be seen as having 'false and misleading' advertising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surferfromuk
I imagine the FCC are going to rule exactly this...
Apple are very likely legally bound by their contract with AT&T to make 'reasonable' efforts to restrict voice apps. I'm sure Apple per se would like a Google Voice iPhone app
Furthermore, Apple should hand over the policing of IP routing of VOIP to AT&T and allow any and all VOIP apps.
Let AT&T block VOIP on their routers - Apple need to get out of being AT&T's doormen very quicky!
I imagine the FCC are going to rule exactly this...
So many words but none related to the topic. GV on iPhone IS NOT VOIP.
Google Voice sounds like a great app. When it becomes available there are going to be many more people downloading and using it due to all the publicity.
Apple should switch to T-Mobile. It's already clear that T-Mobile wants the iPhone, and I believe customers will be much more happy with T-Mo than ATT.
Someone actually referencing wikipedia. Thanks, that was funny.
Anyhoi, nothing there conflicts with what I wrote. GV on iPhone is not VOIP. you are calling or being called over you voice line. At googles end, yes they use VOIP.
If someone on vonage or skype calls your home phone, they are using VOIP...you are not.
Comments
So, you believe Apple should decide what websites you can visit?
Troll or ironic: take your pick...
The wouldn't need Apple's help. They can build everything into it themselves. But notifications are os based. A web app would not be a native app, by definition. It would run in Safari. It can't receive push updates. All apple could do would be to allow the app that would then use the APN API to receive notifications.
Unfortunately, the nature of web apps and of notifications precludes any way for the web app to receive notifications. Unless there is a native app component to 'receive' the notification. And in that case, they have just approved the app they denied.
Google could just make a "Google notifications" app that functions for notifications for all Google services. They couldn't deny an app like that as it wouldn't specifically be breaking the part of the AT&T contract that requires Apple to remove the app in the first place.
Apple isn't banning the app, they are meeting the requirements of the AT&T agreement to minimise bandwidth sucking apps that duplicate or compete with AT&T's "services."
No, if the app accesses web-based content, Apple now automatically classifies them as for adults only.
Not true actually. "unfiltered" web-based content only.
Only those developers stupid enough to build in a web-component, but not use Safari get hit with that.
Safari has built in parental controls. If the app is a full-fledged web app running in Safari, it's not subject to anything because the user already has access to parental controls for Safari.
Google could just make a "Google notifications" app that functions for notifications for all Google services. They couldn't deny an app like that as it wouldn't specifically be breaking the part of the AT&T contract that requires Apple to remove the app in the first place.
Apple isn't banning the app, they are meeting the requirements of the AT&T agreement to minimise bandwidth sucking apps that duplicate or compete with AT&T's "services."
I tend to agree with all of this. Except the reasoning for Apple denying the app. Apple stated they had a reason. They said it duplicated functionality already present. They didn't explain what this meant or why other apps that individually do each of the functions GV offers were allowed to stay.
It may very well have actually been AT&T's doing or Apple acting to comply with their contract. But they have not clarified this point and have actually confused it by giving the developers differing reasons.
Troll or ironic: take your pick...
Could be either. Unfortunately, you do see (especially here) many that do actually look to Apple for guidance on things what is good and it bad. It could very well have been sincere.
but trying to undercut a network does not seem like the best way to get them or their partners to play well in the sandbox.
google is providing everything for free right now.
us lazy humans like free stuff.
other competitors providing the infrastructure for the free stuff have the obvious cost of running and maintaining the infrastructure, so they will eventually lose the competition - for mapping, and voice calls, and email, and office documents, and operating systems, and phones.
but we like free stuff....
people will sell their souls for free stuff....
but once we are all hooked....
and google is the only one left standing....
they will start to collect...
and google government will already know everything about you and you won't be able to escape!!!
remember google is not your friend - they are just the best disguised enemy
So... sorry but a kludged together web app sucks for GV...
Seriously... as much as I LOVE my iPhone, if this doesn't get resolved my next phone will likely run Android.
Which Android phone you wanna get?
They are ok if you like lots of Google and Amazon things.
I've got an HTC Magic here people (mainly WinMo people) say you can't tell the difference between a 65k colour screen and a 16 million colour screen but as I hold it side by side with my iPhone you can definately see a difference.
I guess the same people would say there's no difference between the Mona Lisa and a cornflakes packet.
yes but... #1 Native apps can have push notification, which for Google Voice (Voice Mail and SMS) is absolutely critical. #2 Native apps are faster than web apps.
So... sorry but a kludged together web app sucks for GV...
Seriously... as much as I LOVE my iPhone, if this doesn't get resolved my next phone will likely run Android.
Edit:-
I tried downloading Google Voice from the Android market it doesn't even work.
Google Voice invitation request
Please leave your name and email, and we'll invite you as soon as Google Voice becomes available. If you left us your email address previously on the GrandCentral site, you don't need to resubmit it here.
Name *
Email *
This email address will only be used to inform you about when you will be able to sign up and not be collected or used for any marketing purposes.
Please note that Google Voice is only available for sign up in the US.
Learn more about Google Voice.
©2009 Google
Apple blocking the Google GV app is absolutely ridiculous and pulling Sean Kovacs GV Mobile app all but unforgivable. Apple ticked him off so much that he modified his app to run on jailbroken iPhones and is giving it away for free which is sort of unfortunate for him.
The next app that I want or need that has been blocked or pulled and it's jailbreak city for me and I won't think twice. Apple is really firing up a bunch of people unnecessarily with their app store heavy handed attitude. Is their goal now to tell Google and the rest of the world (including users) to just bend over and take it or otherwise screw off?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Google Voice app take over the dialer on other phones so that all calls are routed through the Google Voice number (otherwise when you call other people a different number would come up)? If so, this wouldn't have been possible on the iPhone and so the app would have been seriously crippled as a native app anyway.
Not completely sure I understand your question but with Google Voice inbound calls routed to users choice of phone(s) display users choice of either callers caller id info or users GV number. Outbound calls made via GV service display users GV number on called party's caller id. When you initiate an outbound call GV calls both your party and your selected device(s) and sort of conferences them together. I use GV Mobile (bought it before it was pulled from the app store) and it works great. My understanding is the Google GV app that was blocked would have functioned much the same way as GV Mobile.
Furthermore, Apple should hand over the policing of IP routing of VOIP to AT&T and allow any and all VOIP apps.
Let AT&T block VOIP on their routers - Apple need to get out of being AT&T's doormen very quicky!
I imagine the FCC are going to rule exactly this...
Google is the one with the restrictions here, if you download the App and it is unusable because Google doesn't see fit to provide the service then of course Apple has the right to remove an App which could be seen as having 'false and misleading' advertising.
I imagine the FCC are going to rule exactly this...
Apple are very likely legally bound by their contract with AT&T to make 'reasonable' efforts to restrict voice apps. I'm sure Apple per se would like a Google Voice iPhone app
Furthermore, Apple should hand over the policing of IP routing of VOIP to AT&T and allow any and all VOIP apps.
Let AT&T block VOIP on their routers - Apple need to get out of being AT&T's doormen very quicky!
I imagine the FCC are going to rule exactly this...
So many words but none related to the topic. GV on iPhone IS NOT VOIP.
So many words but none related to the topic. GV on iPhone IS NOT VOIP.
You'd better tell wikipedia that....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Voice
You'd better tell wikipedia that....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Voice
Someone actually referencing wikipedia. Thanks, that was funny.
Anyhoi, nothing there conflicts with what I wrote. GV on iPhone is not VOIP. you are calling or being called over you voice line. At googles end, yes they use VOIP.
If someone on vonage or skype calls your home phone, they are using VOIP...you are not.
Why is this so hard for people?