Google says Voice was "rejected" from iPhone App Store
The Federal Communications Commission on Friday posted the un-redacted version of Google's letter regarding the iPhone App Store at the request of the search company, bringing new revelations in the Google Voice dispute.
Google's letter directly contradicts Apple's own claim that the Google Voice application was not outright rejected from the App Store. Apple, in its own note to the FCC, said it simply had not accepted the software, essentially leaving it in a state of limbo. Google, however, opted to use different language to describe the application's status.
"Apple's representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone," the letter said. "The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality."
In a post on Google's Public Policy Blog, Richard Whitt, Washington telecom and media counsel for Google, said that Google initially redacted information from its letter to the FCC -- mostly descriptions of e-mails, telephone conversations and meetings between Google and Apple executives -- in the interest of protecting sensitive conversations between two companies. The letters were filed at the request of the FCC, after Google was unable to have its Google Voice telephony application approved for use on the iPhone by Apple.
After Apple posted its letter in its entirety for the public, Google decided it would do the same.
"Shortly afterward, several individuals and organizations submitted Freedom of Information Act requests with the FCC seeking access to this information," Whitt said. "While we could have asked the FCC to oppose those requests, in light of Apple's decision to make its own letter fully public and in the interest of transparency, we decided to drop our request for confidentiality."
In its letter, Google also explained that the Google Latitude application was rejected because Apple believed the software could replace the native Maps application included with the iPhone, and also "create user confusion" with the preloaded version of Google Maps.
Google Voice was discussed a number of times between the two companies with meetings in person, and via phone calls and e-mails. Google said the primary contacts between the two were Alan Eustace, Google's senior vice president of Engineering & Research, and Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. On June 2, Google said, Schiller informed Eustace that Apple rejected Google Voice from the App Store.
In its letter, Google also argued that some of its other, previously approved applications duplicate features of the iPhone's native software. Google said that its Earth application is similar to the iPhone Maps application, and that the Google Mobile Application allows users to search much like the Web search in Apple's Safari browser.
In its own letter filed in August, Apple said it did not reject Google Voice, but that the company "continues to study it." The letter from Apple confirms what was written in Google's own note to the FCC: That the iPhone maker felt Google Voice replaced the core functionality of the device and replicated the Apple user interface.
Google's letter directly contradicts Apple's own claim that the Google Voice application was not outright rejected from the App Store. Apple, in its own note to the FCC, said it simply had not accepted the software, essentially leaving it in a state of limbo. Google, however, opted to use different language to describe the application's status.
"Apple's representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone," the letter said. "The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality."
In a post on Google's Public Policy Blog, Richard Whitt, Washington telecom and media counsel for Google, said that Google initially redacted information from its letter to the FCC -- mostly descriptions of e-mails, telephone conversations and meetings between Google and Apple executives -- in the interest of protecting sensitive conversations between two companies. The letters were filed at the request of the FCC, after Google was unable to have its Google Voice telephony application approved for use on the iPhone by Apple.
After Apple posted its letter in its entirety for the public, Google decided it would do the same.
"Shortly afterward, several individuals and organizations submitted Freedom of Information Act requests with the FCC seeking access to this information," Whitt said. "While we could have asked the FCC to oppose those requests, in light of Apple's decision to make its own letter fully public and in the interest of transparency, we decided to drop our request for confidentiality."
In its letter, Google also explained that the Google Latitude application was rejected because Apple believed the software could replace the native Maps application included with the iPhone, and also "create user confusion" with the preloaded version of Google Maps.
Google Voice was discussed a number of times between the two companies with meetings in person, and via phone calls and e-mails. Google said the primary contacts between the two were Alan Eustace, Google's senior vice president of Engineering & Research, and Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. On June 2, Google said, Schiller informed Eustace that Apple rejected Google Voice from the App Store.
In its letter, Google also argued that some of its other, previously approved applications duplicate features of the iPhone's native software. Google said that its Earth application is similar to the iPhone Maps application, and that the Google Mobile Application allows users to search much like the Web search in Apple's Safari browser.
In its own letter filed in August, Apple said it did not reject Google Voice, but that the company "continues to study it." The letter from Apple confirms what was written in Google's own note to the FCC: That the iPhone maker felt Google Voice replaced the core functionality of the device and replicated the Apple user interface.
Comments
Seriously, if they pull this same crap on OSX, I'd walk away immediately. Imagine no choices in Mail or Browser software on your computer.
Just a theory of course...
I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.
If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.
I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?
I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.
If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.
Sorry, but in this instance it's about a LACK of choice.
Duplication of functionality... really? Give me a break.
Calculator apps galore... VOIP apps galore... HOW IS GOOGLE VOICE ANY DIFFERENT?
This is *not* good for consumers. Quit apologizing for Apple.
w00master
I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?
I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.
If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.
You're about to get burned for this (not by me, I agree with you) - go put on your poncho for the incoming sh!t storm (unless of course 1/3 (more or less?) of the AI readers took Friday off!).
EDIT: Told ya
EDIT2: For curiosity sake it's less that I agree and more that, frankly, I don't give a crap about any of the apps that have ever been rejected (at least the ones that we know about)
I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?
I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.
If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.
Since the Android browser is based on WebKit, Google already has a version of Safari running on Android...no reason for Apple to do it...but I think they would have no objections to them doing it.
Now, if google decided to block all Mac users from using google search, I guess we would all choose to buy PCs instead. No, on second thought, that would make no sense. Google Voice and Google Android spec are separate products. There is no rational reason for Apple to block GV on the iPhone.
The only reason is that Apple is afraid that the GV app would be so compelling that users would opt to use the GV for all phone functions (as an aside, you wouldn't believe how many people here thought Apple meant that the GV app actually removed and replaced core Apple applications
I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?
I'm sure Google would love this, and even if they didn't they certainly wouldn't attempt to block it (they actually don't have the capability to block it! And this is INTENTIONAL on their part!).
Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.
And is it lost on you that this is exactly why the telecoms (I'm looking at you, Verizon) are so vehemently deplored?
If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.
If hardware makers stopped trying to protect their proprietary software designs and instead linked their excellent hardware to the excellent Android open-source OS, I'd likely swap my 3GS for one. But I sure as hell am not going from my iPhone to a clunky HTC. And as far as capitalism and free economy... uhm, were anti-trust regulations passed explicitly to ensure the continuation of a free market economy?
I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?
I love Google, but don't feel like they should have the right to invade every piece of technology I own. Apple should maintain the right to control apps for it's own phone. The carriers have done this for years.
If you want Google Voice - make a choice - iPhone or Android. That's what capitalism and a free economy is all about - choice.
Despite your implication, I suspect Google would have no issue with Safari for Android. Having another or better browser for their platform is a win.
The problem with the Google Voice on iPhone scenario is that Apple can't bite the hand that feeds it.
AT&T subsidizes every iPhone by $400 and realistically there is no other network partner to jump ship to. So, If Apple approves GV and then customers start dropping their texting plans and lowering there minutes plans...AT&T loses hundreds of millions of dollars. Apple can't afford to cut AT&T throat...yet.
Can anyone say 'case closed'?
Corallary..."Would you do it?"
I wonder what the odds are that Apple is unilaterally taking the beating over GV to shield AT&T from even more bad PR.
Apple is not going to take heat for a partner they're unhappy with. And judging from the fact that I still don't have MMS, a tethering option, or workable 3G half the time, I'd say they're more than a little upset.
Apple can and should kick out a CDMA phone. If not with Verizon's blessing and subsidy, then without for use as a cudgel during the FCC investigations.
I wonder how Google would feel about Apple building a version of Safari for a phone on the Android platform?
That's an amazingly ignorant question. Android is open-source; even if Google *wanted* to stop development of Safari for Android, it would be impossible to do so, short of hunting down and killing every Safari developer on the planet.
While I love my Apple products, they need to take their heads out of their ass about this. Yes, those apps could potentially replace the core apps, but so what? If a user is smart enough to understand to download the app, then they damn know well which one is which and there is no "confusion". Do Apple think their users are really that stupid?
Seriously, if they pull this same crap on OSX, I'd walk away immediately. Imagine no choices in Mail or Browser software on your computer.
Not their users.
As Jobs said right, the iPhone must be a phone first. And unlike all the cell phones that where being sold at the time, making a call and maintaining it for any degree of time was virtually impossible.
Like the Mac, Apple has by design, ensured a degree of assurance that is not seen with any operating hardware/system. You want to develop applications, you best abide by the rules. Of which the iPhone SDK is well and comprehensively described. And complying to such is mandatory.
Like J-walking. Pleading ignorance of the law, is not a defense.
You buy a Chevy and want to add a supercharger, that is your prerogative. Chances are GM will even help you screw up, it cost little to recover. Try doing the same with a Lamborghini.
P.S. You really don't know what is implied re 'replacing the core apps.'
P.P.S. You come into somebody's house and the first thing that you say is that they need to take their head our ass, you expect to get some respect and have them listen to you. Talk about stupidity.
I wonder what the odds are that Apple is unilaterally taking the beating over GV to shield AT&T from even more bad PR.
The only way AT&T could get even worse PR would be to fire all their own customer service reps and hire Sprint's CS department.
Their network sucks; their network coverage is laughable; they have delayed MMS for the iPhone (presumably because their network infrastructure is wimpy and can't handle the projected load) for 3 years now, even though every other even halfway-smart phone on the AT&T network already has it; they delay voicemail and SMS messages for hours when they don't simply drop them completely; and they overcharge users of the AT&T cellular network, something like 500% to get *less* service than somewhat similar plans in Europe.
Well, I guess AT&T could be caught stealing babies from hospitals and eating them, and that might make their PR worse than it is. Although frankly, I doubt it.
Up until this GV debacle, AT&T was the dealbreaker for me getting an iPhone. Now it's AT&T *and* Apple. And for the record, I hate Microsoft and think Steve Ballmer will teach the Antichrist everything he'll ever know. But right now, the Apple/AT&T "marriage made in Hell" looks worse to me.
Not their users.
As Jobs said right, the iPhone must be a phone first.
... but the iPhone is an awful phone.
Seriously: my 3GS is, overall, the nicest electronic device I have ever used. It is also the worst cellphone I have ever had, going all the way back to the original Motorola StarTAC.