Okay. I'll say it. I think Apple is lying. They are not above lying to someone. Steve Jobs is a salesman, not a saint. His loyalties, contrary to what most here think, are to the shareholders, the current Mrs. Jobs, and his kids. Not necessarily in that order. He would screw over everyone in this forum (lie) if it would sell more products and give him an advantage.
Apple have every right to refuse to sell anything they like, just as chose what they sell in the Retail Stores.
Can you name any other retailer that is forced to sell something they don't want to?
It's also possible that Apple know GV has a potentially huge bandwidth impact and that by approving GV they might run afoul of their contract with AT&T. Apple and AT&T likely don't want the details of their contract to be made public so Apple has to use other reasons for the long review. If AT&T is scared of Google they wouldn't want to admit it so they're letting Apple use nebulous look and feel criticisms to hide the truth.
Okay. I'll say it. I think Apple is lying. They are not above lying to someone. Steve Jobs is a salesman, not a saint. His loyalties, contrary to what most here think, are to the shareholders, the current Mrs. Jobs, and his kids. Not necessarily in that order. He would screw over everyone in this forum (lie) if it would sell more products and give him an advantage.
No! Apple does not lie!
The iPod Touch doesn't have a camera because it's a gaming console, didn't you know that?! Don't believe anyone who says they had to pull that feature at the last minute!
Okay. I'll say it. I think Apple is lying. They are not above lying to someone. Steve Jobs is a salesman, not a saint. His loyalties, contrary to what most here think, are to the shareholders, the current Mrs. Jobs, and his kids. Not necessarily in that order. He would screw over everyone in this forum (lie) if it would sell more products and give him an advantage.
Man, that is quite inflammatory. IMO.
But, I guess that is your right to say so.
I wonder how many here condone your position. I don't.
You go to the airport and you see that your flight has not arrived as scheduled. So I gather you would say it 'crashed'.
No. I'd say "Looks like Apple didn't approve the Flight Plan". "I need to look for another Airline that is more reliable with approving their flight plans".
Apple has been made to look foolish with this entire matter and those that are apologizing for Apple at this point are looking just as foolish.
I wonder how many here condone your position. I don't.
Anybody?
I do not care if anyone here condones my position. Nor do I care if anyone thinks it is inflammatory. What is anyone here in this forum to me? Nothing more than a bunch of virtual keyboards, each with their own opinion. The difference is that I do not live in Steve Jobs pants and worship in Cupertino. Apple makes some great products. Many of which I happen to own and will continue to own, but I also see Apple for what it is. A company that is business to make money. To give as little as possible to maximize profits. I have no problems with this as I choose to continue my patronage to them. Sooooooo, if you can, prove that Apple is not lying.
The iPod Touch doesn't have a camera because it's a gaming console, didn't you know that?! Don't believe anyone who says they had to pull that feature at the last minute!
I have not idea what you are talking about. Did I mention a camera anywhere in my post? How did you make this unrelated leap?
I wonder how many here condone your position. I don't.
Anybody?
I definitely second what the OP said, and if you think otherwise you really need to take a closer look at some of the stuff that has happened and is continuing to happen wrt apple and openness, if thats even a word.
Considering that AT&T's data network speed already s*cks in many locations ... what do you suppose a VoIP app from Google would do to it (if it found widespread acceptance/use)?
I don't own an iPhone, but I use a Samsung Blackjack (for Data/work only) on AT&T and it is terrible, even though they claim "3G" (and it sure is expensive).
I would suspect that Apple's decision has more to do with AT&T then anything else. Why else would they care how someone uses the iPhone after they have made their money from the sale?
If iPhone becomes available on T-mobile, I may give it another thought and while I am ranting: the ipod lineup needs some serious improvements before I buy another one (still using a 1st gen Nano and a 1st gen "Classic"). For now Apple (once again) is a computer company to me. (sorry for going a little off-topic here, but the last ipod "updates" are just so lame).
If the app was rejected by Apple then Google could simply produce the rejection notice to prove it.
Why don't they?
I highly doubt Apple sent them a rejection letter, considering the phone conversation between two higher ups in both companies. Plus, if Apple know this could blow up wouldn't it suit their needs better to not supply any written communications about this?
Considering that AT&T's data network speed already s*cks in many locations ... what do you suppose a VoIP app from Google would do to it (if it found widespread acceptance/use)?
It's not a VOIP app, it uses the voice channel just like making a call today on your iphone.
All organization or bureaucracies have a concept of "pending". Meaning, something hasn't been completed, decided, or categorized yet.
If you're claiming that Apple is lying, just say so. While Apple's claim of pending might be dishonest, a stalling tactic, or a ruse... The concept of pending still exists. Claiming otherwise "is just baloney."
The fresh air of a rationale rebuttal devoid of speculation. Thank you.
Comments
Okay. I'll say it. I think Apple is lying. They are not above lying to someone. Steve Jobs is a salesman, not a saint. His loyalties, contrary to what most here think, are to the shareholders, the current Mrs. Jobs, and his kids. Not necessarily in that order. He would screw over everyone in this forum (lie) if it would sell more products and give him an advantage.
Apple have every right to refuse to sell anything they like, just as chose what they sell in the Retail Stores.
Can you name any other retailer that is forced to sell something they don't want to?
Is that all you have to contribute? Explain why you disagree moron!
As a starter, NOwhere in your linked reference does it say, "FCC to approve Google Voice."
In fact, it is not only a rule, or even a proposal as yet. But a "…plan to propose…"
And it has nothing to do whether Apple "rejects" the app afterall.
cc Moderator
Apple have every right to refuse to sell anything they like, just as chose what they sell in the Retail Stores.
Can you name any other retailer that is forced to sell something they don't want to?
As I understand it, many communications companies are required to sell their bandwidth to competitors.
And if GV wasn't rejected in Apple words, how can we call pulling out from App Store the third party GV applications that were accepted months ago?
It's also possible that Apple know GV has a potentially huge bandwidth impac
GV doesn't take bandwith, it's not a VoIP application, it uses cell minutes as normal calls
Okay. I'll say it. I think Apple is lying. They are not above lying to someone. Steve Jobs is a salesman, not a saint. His loyalties, contrary to what most here think, are to the shareholders, the current Mrs. Jobs, and his kids. Not necessarily in that order. He would screw over everyone in this forum (lie) if it would sell more products and give him an advantage.
No! Apple does not lie!
The iPod Touch doesn't have a camera because it's a gaming console, didn't you know that?! Don't believe anyone who says they had to pull that feature at the last minute!
Okay. I'll say it. I think Apple is lying. They are not above lying to someone. Steve Jobs is a salesman, not a saint. His loyalties, contrary to what most here think, are to the shareholders, the current Mrs. Jobs, and his kids. Not necessarily in that order. He would screw over everyone in this forum (lie) if it would sell more products and give him an advantage.
Man, that is quite inflammatory. IMO.
But, I guess that is your right to say so.
I wonder how many here condone your position. I don't.
Anybody?
You go to the airport and you see that your flight has not arrived as scheduled. So I gather you would say it 'crashed'.
No. I'd say "Looks like Apple didn't approve the Flight Plan". "I need to look for another Airline that is more reliable with approving their flight plans".
Apple has been made to look foolish with this entire matter and those that are apologizing for Apple at this point are looking just as foolish.
GV is still in Beta isn't it?
What gives anyone the right to demand Beta software, it's not like you can walk into Best Buy and demand a Laptop with Windows 7 installed on it.
You go to the airport and you see that your flight has not arrived as scheduled. So I gather you would say it 'crashed'.
No, he would say the airline flat out lied about the "scheduled" time
As I understand it, many communications companies are required to sell their bandwidth to competitors.
US companies are not allowed to boycott Israel by law.
Man, that is quite inflammatory. IMO.
But, I guess that is your right to say so.
I wonder how many here condone your position. I don't.
Anybody?
I do not care if anyone here condones my position. Nor do I care if anyone thinks it is inflammatory. What is anyone here in this forum to me? Nothing more than a bunch of virtual keyboards, each with their own opinion. The difference is that I do not live in Steve Jobs pants and worship in Cupertino. Apple makes some great products. Many of which I happen to own and will continue to own, but I also see Apple for what it is. A company that is business to make money. To give as little as possible to maximize profits. I have no problems with this as I choose to continue my patronage to them. Sooooooo, if you can, prove that Apple is not lying.
No! Apple does not lie!
The iPod Touch doesn't have a camera because it's a gaming console, didn't you know that?! Don't believe anyone who says they had to pull that feature at the last minute!
I have not idea what you are talking about. Did I mention a camera anywhere in my post? How did you make this unrelated leap?
Man, that is quite inflammatory. IMO.
But, I guess that is your right to say so.
I wonder how many here condone your position. I don't.
Anybody?
I definitely second what the OP said, and if you think otherwise you really need to take a closer look at some of the stuff that has happened and is continuing to happen wrt apple and openness, if thats even a word.
Sooooooo, if you can, prove that Apple is not lying.
If the app was rejected by Apple then Google could simply produce the rejection notice to prove it.
Why don't they?
Or is the rejection notice next to the birth certificate?
I don't own an iPhone, but I use a Samsung Blackjack (for Data/work only) on AT&T and it is terrible, even though they claim "3G" (and it sure is expensive).
I would suspect that Apple's decision has more to do with AT&T then anything else. Why else would they care how someone uses the iPhone after they have made their money from the sale?
If iPhone becomes available on T-mobile, I may give it another thought and while I am ranting: the ipod lineup needs some serious improvements before I buy another one (still using a 1st gen Nano and a 1st gen "Classic"). For now Apple (once again) is a computer company to me. (sorry for going a little off-topic here, but the last ipod "updates" are just so lame).
If the app was rejected by Apple then Google could simply produce the rejection notice to prove it.
Why don't they?
I highly doubt Apple sent them a rejection letter, considering the phone conversation between two higher ups in both companies. Plus, if Apple know this could blow up wouldn't it suit their needs better to not supply any written communications about this?
Considering that AT&T's data network speed already s*cks in many locations ... what do you suppose a VoIP app from Google would do to it (if it found widespread acceptance/use)?
It's not a VOIP app, it uses the voice channel just like making a call today on your iphone.
You can't possibly be serious.
All organization or bureaucracies have a concept of "pending". Meaning, something hasn't been completed, decided, or categorized yet.
If you're claiming that Apple is lying, just say so. While Apple's claim of pending might be dishonest, a stalling tactic, or a ruse... The concept of pending still exists. Claiming otherwise "is just baloney."
The fresh air of a rationale rebuttal devoid of speculation. Thank you.