Apple fires back at Google over Voice app rejection claim
Hours after Google's letter to the FCC was published in its entirety, Apple has directly responded to the claim that it has formally rejected the Google Voice application from the iPhone App Store.
In a note to Silicon Valley Insider, an Apple representative Friday reiterated what the company said in its own letter to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in August: That it has not rejected the application, but it has not accepted it either.
"We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter," the Apple rep reportedly said. "Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google.?
Both Google and Apple sent letters to the FCC last month, after the commission began inquiry into the Google Voice situation. Apple retains complete control over the iPhone and iPod touch App Store, and has not approved Google Voice for download.
When Google's letter was first revealed, it was heavily redacted, concealing specific details and preventing the public from reading the true nature of the exchange between it and Apple. But after receiving numerous Freedom of Information Act requests -- and after Apple published its own letter in its entirety -- Google opted to ask the FCC to publish the document un-redacted. It was released Friday.
In that document, Google alleged that Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, personally told the company that the Google Voice telephony application was outright "rejected" from the App Store.
Friday's response from Apple in a prompt fashion is unique for the Cupertino, Calif., company, which rarely speaks out publicly on such matters.
Also a part of the FCC investigation is AT&T, who, in their own letter, denied any part in the Google Voice situation. AT&T said that Apple has complete control over the App Store, with a few contractual exceptions that deal with network bandwidth issues. Apple has supported AT&T's claims.
In a note to Silicon Valley Insider, an Apple representative Friday reiterated what the company said in its own letter to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in August: That it has not rejected the application, but it has not accepted it either.
"We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter," the Apple rep reportedly said. "Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google.?
Both Google and Apple sent letters to the FCC last month, after the commission began inquiry into the Google Voice situation. Apple retains complete control over the iPhone and iPod touch App Store, and has not approved Google Voice for download.
When Google's letter was first revealed, it was heavily redacted, concealing specific details and preventing the public from reading the true nature of the exchange between it and Apple. But after receiving numerous Freedom of Information Act requests -- and after Apple published its own letter in its entirety -- Google opted to ask the FCC to publish the document un-redacted. It was released Friday.
In that document, Google alleged that Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, personally told the company that the Google Voice telephony application was outright "rejected" from the App Store.
Friday's response from Apple in a prompt fashion is unique for the Cupertino, Calif., company, which rarely speaks out publicly on such matters.
Also a part of the FCC investigation is AT&T, who, in their own letter, denied any part in the Google Voice situation. AT&T said that Apple has complete control over the App Store, with a few contractual exceptions that deal with network bandwidth issues. Apple has supported AT&T's claims.
Comments
Somebody's fudging the truth. It sounds to me like it's Apple.
I don't understand Apples real motivation in all of this, at all.
Break out the PR lackeys and the lawyers. And the "viral videos".
- Jasen.
Somebody's fudging the truth. It sounds to me like it's Apple.
I am inclined to assume the same about fudging but I am wondering if there is a clause in AT&T's contract with Apple that no application that would utilize VOIP in a manner as to disrupt the AT&T's network based on the quote. "AT&T said that Apple has complete control over the App Store, with a few contractual exceptions that deal with network bandwidth issues."
I assume AT&T's network can not maintain stability with voice calls and data rates that are being inflicted on it not only by the iPhone but with all smart phones. The iPhone seems the be the one demanding the most bandwidth because of the sheer number of subscribers. Someone might know the estimated number of them sold in the US and then add in all the other smart phones to see what type of bandwidth that might be as a whole.
My 2 cents... Have a good day...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/17226...n_the_end.html
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.
You don't know much about logic or argument do you?
It's patently obvious that there can be many things in-between "were 100% okay with this" and "no we won't host this app in the store." The very fact that all the rejections we know about so far point to specific features or reasons app were considered unacceptable indicates that Apple is usually open to negotiation.
In this particular case, they've even already indicated that they would probably accept a web-based version of the same thing, and that the issue is not VoIP per se.
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.
Yup. Apple's playing a game of morally dubious semantics, here. "Not accepted" in their fudgy, by-the-letter interpetation is the same thing as "it hasn't been rejected." The question then becomes did Phil say "rejected" on the phone, or not. Google thinks/believes/claims he did, Apple hasn't yet said. The bigger the company, the slipperier the language gets, eh?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...l?hpid=topnews
Wow, that's pretty heavy. I wonder how the carriers are going to react to that. Probably try to raise their rates or something. I wonder too if this would clear the way for a fully-fledged over-network version of Skype...
EDIT: Upon a more thorough reading, it would appear Apple would still potentially have the right to reject these apps, although it also suggests the FCC may have the right with this law to force cellphone makers to allow these type of apps. I doubt that would happen, but this is an interesting turn of events nonetheless. I figured the FCC would puss out over the whole issue to be honest.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...l?hpid=topnews
This ruling wouldn't actually change the basis of Apple's problems with the Google Voice app.
Just Sayin.
"We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter," the Apple rep reportedly said.
Is it just me, or is this a completely unnecessary statement? We've already read Apple's letter to the FCC, so we already know that Apple disagrees. Moreover, this just seems to justify Google's initial decision to black-out their response.
I'd say Apple's behavior here is childish, but between this, Kanye West, and congressman Joe Wilson... maybe my expectations for the human race in general are just too high.
Yup. Apple's playing a game of morally dubious semantics, here. "Not accepted" in their fudgy, by-the-letter interpetation is the same thing as "it hasn't been rejected." The question then becomes did Phil say "rejected" on the phone, or not. Google thinks/believes/claims he did, Apple hasn't yet said. The bigger the company, the slipperier the language gets, eh?
Agreed. Like the legal difference between pleading 'guilty' and pleading 'nolo contendere'. It's an intangible difference in a very tangible world.
Google says, "the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representative indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality."
Apple sees user interface, Google sees functionality. See the difference? If I replaced Google's use of the word functionality with features do you get it then. The age old misunderstanding, "my music player has more features than an iPod", "my mobile has had copy and paste for decades" etc. This is so typical, tech nerds misunderstand, Google say they know what Apple believed but in truth they just don't get it.
User interface is how humans interact with the world, people and indeed everything around them. Still most humans can't see it. It's incredible, people do it every hour of every day and most still don't understand.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...l?hpid=topnews
I am torn on this. Much as I too would like everything internet-related to be allowed on all networks, there will be two definite consequences we should be prepared for, if this ruling were to pass: (i) Operators will cut back on capex (why would they take the risk and invest so that someone else can make the profits by underselling their core services?), thereby making the pipes slower and more erratic; and (ii) They will have to raise prices on non-voice services to compensate.
If they don't want to allow GV on the iPhone, just come out and say so. Apple's just insulting their customers' intelligence, and perhaps worse the FCC, but playing semantics. Not approving the app, rejecting the app, bottom line is that the app is unavailable to customers.
Also, what about the previous third-party GV apps that were approved and then pulled from the app store? Why were they pulled?
Whatever the outcome of all this, I can't help but think that the Google/Apple relationship may take a serious hit. Stay tuned...
Thankfully Google did a good job with Google Voice and using mobile Safari with the website works very well. Still Apple needs to quit whining and just release the app to the App store. The customers should not suffer because Apple and Google are acting stupid.
This ruling wouldn't actually change the basis of Apple's problems with the Google Voice app.
Just Sayin.
It doesn't matter what Apple's claims are. Apple is blocking Google's services on the net. BTW, there are other "app dialers" that duplicated Apples own, so their claims are dishonest and their motives transparent.
This ruling wouldn't actually change the basis of Apple's problems with the Google Voice app.
Just Sayin.
Nah, you're just speculatin'.