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...
So, what exactly is your theory that explains why Apple hasn't approved the GV app?
No, a Google Voice application would run on those platforms therefore people have a choice if they want to use a Google Voice application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Yes, because an iPhone app would run on those platforms...oh wait.
No, obviously because if people want to us a Google Voice application so badly there are alternatives to the iPhone, you are free to make a choice based on weighing up your needs and balancing them against what is on offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Obviously it wasn't what he meant.
When was it banned?
From my understanding the GV App is still under review.
I am banned from using Google Voice because of my geographical location (Australia), I even downloaded the Google Voice Application to an HTC Magic but Google won't let me use it.
Maybe I should go through a US proxy and set up a GV account.
Do you think Google will mind paying carrier termination fees when all my calls route through Australia?
I take it some people in rural regions of the US will be in a similar situation.
So, what exactly is your theory that explains why Apple hasn't approved the GV app?
Actually, I don't think you are entirely off the mark. I don't, at all, agree with your position that it relates to Google's information gathering abilities. That makes no sense at all, given that Apple recently built syncing with Google right into Snow Leopard.
I think it was probably Apple's desire not to have google so present on the iPhone. The built in apps already include two, maps and youtube. Apple promoted the shit out of Google Earth when it launched, mainly because it was a high profile app that showcased the capabilities of the iPhone graphics. They also turned a blind eye to Google using unpublished APIs in the Google Mobile app, a leniency no other developer to my knowledge has been granted. Again, likely because it was out when the appstore was still ramping up and a high profile app like that helped promote the appstore. Maybe Apple just decided another google app was one too many.
With the Google Voice app Apple could well have had a concern that Google was now offering an alternative to their telephony functionality and this is likely a only reason it was put into limbo. My issue with this reasoning is that it is so flawed.
Firstly, as has been repeatedly stated, barring the app in no way prevents iPhone users from using the service. It simply make it less convenient...so why go through all the bad press to block an app that doesn't really block it?
Second, if Apple is afraid of the app because it dilutes the iPhone experience, then why approve other apps that provide almost (in some case not even almost) the exact same service, but not through google? If any of these other apps become popular, then they will be made available for other platforms. When that happens, then the exact same argument would have to be applied-users using said app on pre, android and winmo would have the same experience as iPhone users using the app and so the iPhone experience would be diluted. So, then why only the apps related to google voice? It only becomes an issue if they believe that mass numbers of users would flock to the google voice app,where they would not to the other services. Perhaps this is true, but it shows signs of fear on Apple's part, perhaps because of Google size and reach. This is unfortunate, because Apple has never been afraid to be the David to anyone's Goliath. It is a shame to see them act out of fear, as it seems is the case here.
It doesn't seem at all like they are concerned with apps that 'that make the iPhone essentially the same as any other phone for telephony' as they have approved apps that do just that. And in the end, the telephone part, while the most important, is really the least interesting to most users. Interfaces for dialer, VVM and SMS are very well done on the iPhone, but are hardly the be all and end all. Besides the fact that Palm actually owns patents on some of the key interface elements of Apples phone.app (hence their veiled. but never followed upon, threat to sue Palm when the pre was announced...(Palms portfolio was exceedingly broad with things like a button for contacts on the dialer). I mention this not to knock Apple's phone.app interface, but only to point out that it is not exceptionally unique. Apple has shown that if they provide a better experience then users will choose them (ok, not always) even if it costs more. If their interface and overall experience for telephony functions was far and away better than google offerings, people would try the app out and revert to the built in apps. Putting the app into limbo just seems petty and below Apple's standards at that point. I don't think this has anything at all to do with Android. I think this would have played out the same, had google not had Android.
...or maybe that huge new Apple data centre is for more than MobileMe and allowing users to get hooked on GV would have put something else into jeopardy.
No, a Google Voice application would run on those platforms therefore people have a choice if they want to use a Google Voice application.
Actually, yuusharo stated "The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there..."
Which is not specific to the GV app, but was his/her response to a comment about ANY app being sold. So, ignoring GV for the moment, no, if Apple refuses to sell your iPhone app, then you cannot go buy it elsewhere. Fair or not, that is just a fact. Bringing Symbian and RIm, etc it just irrelevant to his/her assertion. You should see that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
No, obviously because if people want to us a Google Voice application so badly there are alternatives to the iPhone, you are free to make a choice based on weighing up your needs and balancing them against what is on offer.
I have an iPhone. I will stay with my iPhone thanks. Doesn't mean I don't think a GV app on the iPhone would be a bad idea just because it isn't available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
When was it banned?
From my understanding the GV App is still under review.
sematics. Banned, not approved, put into indefinate limbo. Whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
I am banned from using Google Voice because of my geographical location (Australia), I even downloaded the Google Voice Application to an HTC Magic but Google won't let me use it.
Maybe I should go through a US proxy and set up a GV account.
Do you think Google will mind paying carrier termination fees when all my calls route through Australia?
Again, how completely irrelevant. There are lots of Apps that are US only and happily approved and for sale on the App store. Being in Aus, you ought to be quite use to being left out. I am in Canada and we are very often left waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
I take it some people in rural regions of the US will be in a similar situation.
You take it wrong completely.
Those rural users are free to use the service. But Google refuses to route calls to some rural locations because the fees are extortionist. I agree that Google should be required to route to those numbers but also that those areas should not be be allowed to excessively charge the rates they do. But rural users can use the service as any other continental US resident can...they are all prevented from calling those restricted locales.
What's up? Have you decided to provide some evidence to the claims you were posting? Oh I forgot, you can't.
let me know what you have something of any value whatsoever to contribute to any of these threads...though that might be a while.
No, I'm in a pool to see how you'll self-combust over GV posts on AI forums. I've got my money on MI (coronary) while a friend has spontaneous brain hemorrhage (stroke).
The funniest thing is that we've learned that whatever is true or false, you were wrong.
No, I'm in a pool to see how you'll self-combust over GV posts on AI forums. I've got my money on MI (coronary) while a friend has spontaneous brain hemorrhage (stroke).
The funniest thing is that we've learned that whatever is true or false, you were wrong.
Ahh, I see. So in other words, another post to mask your inability to understand the topic at hand.
You are partly right though. I do tend to get irked at some posts. Usually the ones that get under my skin are the dishonest ones. The stupidity of some is another trigger. Those that are both are really bothersome.
Speaking of which, your posts almost never show any relevance to the subjects being discussed and when they do, they are lacking factual information or a complete misunderstanding. Was it you that posted that Google was rootkiting users systems with their software? No, that wasn't you. You were the one that posted the GV app pulled user contacts info without the user knowing or consenting. You clearly made that up, yet repeated it. I keep asking for you to try to back up your silly assertions, but you and I know you cannot.
So, yes, perhaps I might be wrong at times. But, at least I keep it honest. Can you claim the same?
No, Tulkas, at the end of the day I really can't be convinced Google does anything out of the goodness of it's collective heart. If they need your contact info for GV, its to give them an edge in tracking you and your contacts in a future effort for marketing. I don't see the altruism on their part, and the fact that they don't complete certain calls (to rural telco serviced areas, in one example) confirms my suspicions are not unfounded. They could leave your contacts unmolested on the iPhone (other apps do this), but choose not to. Why? Because that's the business they are in. The archetypical snoop-meisters, with a giant database for cross-referencing purposes.
The rest is just chest-thumping of the variety seen every day in Jr. High schools all across the country. ("Prove it!" "I know you are but what am I!" etc.) Sorry if I can't be bothered to dredge through that on a daily basis with you...
No, Tulkas, at the end of the day I really can't be convinced Google does anything out of the goodness of it's collective heart. If they need your contact info for GV, its to give them an edge in tracking you and your contacts in a future effort for marketing. I don't see the altruism on their part, and the fact that they don't complete certain calls (to rural telco serviced areas, in one example) confirms my suspicions are not unfounded. They could leave your contacts unmolested on the iPhone (other apps do this), but choose not to. Why? Because that's the business they are in. The archetypical snoop-meisters, with a giant database for cross-referencing purposes.
The rest is just chest-thumping of the variety seen every day in Jr. High schools all across the country. ("Prove it!" "I know you are but what am I!" etc.) Sorry if I can't be bothered to dredge through that on a daily basis with you...
See, there you go again. Unfounded statements that you are trying to pass off as fact. You write "They could leave your contacts unmolested on the iPhone (other apps do this), but choose not to." But you have no idea if this is true. As far you you know, the app did leave your contacts untouched unless you consented. Do you honestly have that much of a problem just making honest statements?
The fact that they don't complete certain calls is completely unrelated to the misleading fabrications you have posted. i.e. how the hell does them not completing calls (that are part of what the FCC has basically acknowledged is a racket) 'confirm' anything in the world to do with your contacts info? You have interesting ways of linking ideas.
If I didn't know you were a guy in your 50's I would have thought you were a young teen trying to discuss things you have no comprehension about...just a real lack of basic critical thought and reasoning in your posts. But, I would at least expect honesty.
It isn't chest thumping. It is calling a spade a spade.
Actually, yuusharo stated "The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there..."
Which is not specific to the GV app, but was his/her response to a comment about ANY app being sold. So, ignoring GV for the moment, no...
Really?
I wasn't aware of any exclusivity agreements as part of developing Apps for the App store preventing the same Apps being sold somewhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
You take it wrong completely.
Those rural users are free to use the service. But Google refuses to route calls to some rural locations because the fees are extortionist. I agree that Google should be required to route to those numbers but also that those areas should not be be allowed to excessively charge the rates they do. But rural users can use the service as any other continental US resident can...they are all prevented from calling those restricted locales.
So what happens if you live in one of these areas?
Will Google provide their service to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
The fact that they don't complete certain calls...
I wasn't aware of any exclusivity agreements as part of developing Apps for the App store preventing the same Apps being sold somewhere else.
You know of another way to get that iPhone app onto the iPhone, outside of jailbreaking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So what happens if you live in one of these areas?
Will Google provide their service to you?
Apparently not.
Apparently yes.
It isn't really that subtle a distinction, that you shouldn't be able to understand. If you live in one of the rural areas, yes, you can use the google service. The only limitation is on calling numbers in those areas. Whether you live in NYC or the backwoods, you can still use the service and you cannot call those numbers. Seriously, is that really that difficult to understand? It doesn't matter where you live in the continental US, you can use the service. It doesn't matter where you live in the continental US, you can't call those numbers. Do you get it yet?
You can use the same application on a different platform.
So if you live in one of these rural areas, you can't call your home number, your neighbours number or local business numbers, sort of defeats the purpose of having Google Voice, doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
You know of another way to get that iPhone app onto the iPhone, outside of jailbreaking?
Apparently yes.
It isn't really that subtle a distinction, that you shouldn't be able to understand. If you live in one of the rural areas, yes, you can use the google service. The only limitation is on calling numbers in those areas. Whether you live in NYC or the backwoods, you can still use the service and you cannot call those numbers. Seriously, is that really that difficult to understand? It doesn't matter where you live in the continental US, you can use the service. It doesn't matter where you live in the continental US, you can't call those numbers. Do you get it yet?
You can use the same application on a different platform.
No. You cannot. You could have it rewritten for different platforms, but isn't the same as it running on another platform. What year is it? Does this really have to be explained on a technologically focused forum?
So again, I'll ask...what options do you believe exist for selling my iPhone app, outside of the AppStore (and not through jailbreaking)? It is a rhetorical question, but you seem so very lost trying to find a way to answer it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So if you live in one of these rural areas, you can't call your home number, your neighbours number or local business numbers, sort of defeats the purpose of having Google Voice, doesn't it?
Which is completely different than being prevented from using it. It not being useful to you doesn't equal being barred from using it. Logic is not really your strong point, is it?
Those service areas are mainly used by call centers and sex line operators. AT&T, the ones trying to have google placed under the same regs they are, actually mentions that in one of the service areas, no calls have ever been placed from the service area since it's creation.
So again, your assertion that rural users in the US would be 'banned' from GV has no basis in fact. I don't think you are being dishonest...just that you aren't able to understand.
If you aren't related to John B, perhaps you are an alias of his....the parallels are scary.
So Google Voice IS a discrimatory product and Apple has every right to hold of on approving it while further investigations continue.
Hence it hasn't been "banned".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
No. You cannot. You could have it rewritten for different platforms, but isn't the same as it running on another platform. What year is it? Does this really have to be explained on a technologically focused forum?
So again, I'll ask...what options do you believe exist for selling my iPhone app, outside of the AppStore (and not through jailbreaking)? It is a rhetorical question, but you seem so very lost trying to find a way to answer it.
Which is completely different than being prevented from using it. It not being useful to you doesn't equal being barred from using it. Logic is not really your strong point, is it?
Those service areas are mainly used by call centers and sex line operators. AT&T, the ones trying to have google placed under the same regs they are, actually mentions that in one of the service areas, no calls have ever been placed from the service area since it's creation.
So again, your assertion that rural users in the US would be 'banned' from GV has no basis in fact. I don't think you are being dishonest...just that you aren't able to understand.
If you aren't related to John B, perhaps you are an alias of his....the parallels are scary.
Comments
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...
So, what exactly is your theory that explains why Apple hasn't approved the GV app?
Yes, because an iPhone app would run on those platforms...oh wait.
No, obviously because if people want to us a Google Voice application so badly there are alternatives to the iPhone, you are free to make a choice based on weighing up your needs and balancing them against what is on offer.
Obviously it wasn't what he meant.
When was it banned?
From my understanding the GV App is still under review.
I am banned from using Google Voice because of my geographical location (Australia), I even downloaded the Google Voice Application to an HTC Magic but Google won't let me use it.
Maybe I should go through a US proxy and set up a GV account.
Do you think Google will mind paying carrier termination fees when all my calls route through Australia?
I take it some people in rural regions of the US will be in a similar situation.
Exactly. So, then why ban it?
So, what exactly is your theory that explains why Apple hasn't approved the GV app?
Actually, I don't think you are entirely off the mark. I don't, at all, agree with your position that it relates to Google's information gathering abilities. That makes no sense at all, given that Apple recently built syncing with Google right into Snow Leopard.
I think it was probably Apple's desire not to have google so present on the iPhone. The built in apps already include two, maps and youtube. Apple promoted the shit out of Google Earth when it launched, mainly because it was a high profile app that showcased the capabilities of the iPhone graphics. They also turned a blind eye to Google using unpublished APIs in the Google Mobile app, a leniency no other developer to my knowledge has been granted. Again, likely because it was out when the appstore was still ramping up and a high profile app like that helped promote the appstore. Maybe Apple just decided another google app was one too many.
With the Google Voice app Apple could well have had a concern that Google was now offering an alternative to their telephony functionality and this is likely a only reason it was put into limbo. My issue with this reasoning is that it is so flawed.
Firstly, as has been repeatedly stated, barring the app in no way prevents iPhone users from using the service. It simply make it less convenient...so why go through all the bad press to block an app that doesn't really block it?
Second, if Apple is afraid of the app because it dilutes the iPhone experience, then why approve other apps that provide almost (in some case not even almost) the exact same service, but not through google? If any of these other apps become popular, then they will be made available for other platforms. When that happens, then the exact same argument would have to be applied-users using said app on pre, android and winmo would have the same experience as iPhone users using the app and so the iPhone experience would be diluted. So, then why only the apps related to google voice? It only becomes an issue if they believe that mass numbers of users would flock to the google voice app,where they would not to the other services. Perhaps this is true, but it shows signs of fear on Apple's part, perhaps because of Google size and reach. This is unfortunate, because Apple has never been afraid to be the David to anyone's Goliath. It is a shame to see them act out of fear, as it seems is the case here.
It doesn't seem at all like they are concerned with apps that 'that make the iPhone essentially the same as any other phone for telephony' as they have approved apps that do just that. And in the end, the telephone part, while the most important, is really the least interesting to most users. Interfaces for dialer, VVM and SMS are very well done on the iPhone, but are hardly the be all and end all. Besides the fact that Palm actually owns patents on some of the key interface elements of Apples phone.app (hence their veiled. but never followed upon, threat to sue Palm when the pre was announced...(Palms portfolio was exceedingly broad with things like a button for contacts on the dialer). I mention this not to knock Apple's phone.app interface, but only to point out that it is not exceptionally unique. Apple has shown that if they provide a better experience then users will choose them (ok, not always) even if it costs more. If their interface and overall experience for telephony functions was far and away better than google offerings, people would try the app out and revert to the built in apps. Putting the app into limbo just seems petty and below Apple's standards at that point. I don't think this has anything at all to do with Android. I think this would have played out the same, had google not had Android.
...or maybe that huge new Apple data centre is for more than MobileMe and allowing users to get hooked on GV would have put something else into jeopardy.
Paging Tulkas... ... Tulkas to the white courtesy phone...
What's up? Have you decided to provide some evidence to the claims you were posting? Oh I forgot, you can't.
let me know what you have something of any value whatsoever to contribute to any of these threads...though that might be a while.
No, a Google Voice application would run on those platforms therefore people have a choice if they want to use a Google Voice application.
Actually, yuusharo stated "The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there..."
Which is not specific to the GV app, but was his/her response to a comment about ANY app being sold. So, ignoring GV for the moment, no, if Apple refuses to sell your iPhone app, then you cannot go buy it elsewhere. Fair or not, that is just a fact. Bringing Symbian and RIm, etc it just irrelevant to his/her assertion. You should see that.
No, obviously because if people want to us a Google Voice application so badly there are alternatives to the iPhone, you are free to make a choice based on weighing up your needs and balancing them against what is on offer.
I have an iPhone. I will stay with my iPhone thanks. Doesn't mean I don't think a GV app on the iPhone would be a bad idea just because it isn't available.
When was it banned?
From my understanding the GV App is still under review.
sematics. Banned, not approved, put into indefinate limbo. Whatever.
I am banned from using Google Voice because of my geographical location (Australia), I even downloaded the Google Voice Application to an HTC Magic but Google won't let me use it.
Maybe I should go through a US proxy and set up a GV account.
Do you think Google will mind paying carrier termination fees when all my calls route through Australia?
Again, how completely irrelevant. There are lots of Apps that are US only and happily approved and for sale on the App store. Being in Aus, you ought to be quite use to being left out. I am in Canada and we are very often left waiting.
I take it some people in rural regions of the US will be in a similar situation.
You take it wrong completely.
Those rural users are free to use the service. But Google refuses to route calls to some rural locations because the fees are extortionist. I agree that Google should be required to route to those numbers but also that those areas should not be be allowed to excessively charge the rates they do. But rural users can use the service as any other continental US resident can...they are all prevented from calling those restricted locales.
What's up? Have you decided to provide some evidence to the claims you were posting? Oh I forgot, you can't.
let me know what you have something of any value whatsoever to contribute to any of these threads...though that might be a while.
No, I'm in a pool to see how you'll self-combust over GV posts on AI forums. I've got my money on MI (coronary) while a friend has spontaneous brain hemorrhage (stroke).
The funniest thing is that we've learned that whatever is true or false, you were wrong.
No, I'm in a pool to see how you'll self-combust over GV posts on AI forums. I've got my money on MI (coronary) while a friend has spontaneous brain hemorrhage (stroke).
The funniest thing is that we've learned that whatever is true or false, you were wrong.
Ahh, I see. So in other words, another post to mask your inability to understand the topic at hand.
You are partly right though. I do tend to get irked at some posts. Usually the ones that get under my skin are the dishonest ones. The stupidity of some is another trigger. Those that are both are really bothersome.
Speaking of which, your posts almost never show any relevance to the subjects being discussed and when they do, they are lacking factual information or a complete misunderstanding. Was it you that posted that Google was rootkiting users systems with their software? No, that wasn't you. You were the one that posted the GV app pulled user contacts info without the user knowing or consenting. You clearly made that up, yet repeated it. I keep asking for you to try to back up your silly assertions, but you and I know you cannot.
So, yes, perhaps I might be wrong at times. But, at least I keep it honest. Can you claim the same?
The rest is just chest-thumping of the variety seen every day in Jr. High schools all across the country. ("Prove it!" "I know you are but what am I!" etc.) Sorry if I can't be bothered to dredge through that on a daily basis with you...
No, Tulkas, at the end of the day I really can't be convinced Google does anything out of the goodness of it's collective heart. If they need your contact info for GV, its to give them an edge in tracking you and your contacts in a future effort for marketing. I don't see the altruism on their part, and the fact that they don't complete certain calls (to rural telco serviced areas, in one example) confirms my suspicions are not unfounded. They could leave your contacts unmolested on the iPhone (other apps do this), but choose not to. Why? Because that's the business they are in. The archetypical snoop-meisters, with a giant database for cross-referencing purposes.
The rest is just chest-thumping of the variety seen every day in Jr. High schools all across the country. ("Prove it!" "I know you are but what am I!" etc.) Sorry if I can't be bothered to dredge through that on a daily basis with you...
See, there you go again. Unfounded statements that you are trying to pass off as fact. You write "They could leave your contacts unmolested on the iPhone (other apps do this), but choose not to." But you have no idea if this is true. As far you you know, the app did leave your contacts untouched unless you consented. Do you honestly have that much of a problem just making honest statements?
The fact that they don't complete certain calls is completely unrelated to the misleading fabrications you have posted. i.e. how the hell does them not completing calls (that are part of what the FCC has basically acknowledged is a racket) 'confirm' anything in the world to do with your contacts info? You have interesting ways of linking ideas.
If I didn't know you were a guy in your 50's I would have thought you were a young teen trying to discuss things you have no comprehension about...just a real lack of basic critical thought and reasoning in your posts. But, I would at least expect honesty.
It isn't chest thumping. It is calling a spade a spade.
Actually, yuusharo stated "The biggest difference here is if Apple will refuse your product in their retail stores, you can go somewhere else and sell it there..."
Which is not specific to the GV app, but was his/her response to a comment about ANY app being sold. So, ignoring GV for the moment, no...
Really?
I wasn't aware of any exclusivity agreements as part of developing Apps for the App store preventing the same Apps being sold somewhere else.
You take it wrong completely.
Those rural users are free to use the service. But Google refuses to route calls to some rural locations because the fees are extortionist. I agree that Google should be required to route to those numbers but also that those areas should not be be allowed to excessively charge the rates they do. But rural users can use the service as any other continental US resident can...they are all prevented from calling those restricted locales.
So what happens if you live in one of these areas?
Will Google provide their service to you?
The fact that they don't complete certain calls...
Apparently not.
Really?
I wasn't aware of any exclusivity agreements as part of developing Apps for the App store preventing the same Apps being sold somewhere else.
You know of another way to get that iPhone app onto the iPhone, outside of jailbreaking?
So what happens if you live in one of these areas?
Will Google provide their service to you?
Apparently not.
Apparently yes.
It isn't really that subtle a distinction, that you shouldn't be able to understand. If you live in one of the rural areas, yes, you can use the google service. The only limitation is on calling numbers in those areas. Whether you live in NYC or the backwoods, you can still use the service and you cannot call those numbers. Seriously, is that really that difficult to understand? It doesn't matter where you live in the continental US, you can use the service. It doesn't matter where you live in the continental US, you can't call those numbers. Do you get it yet?
Are you related to John B?
So if you live in one of these rural areas, you can't call your home number, your neighbours number or local business numbers, sort of defeats the purpose of having Google Voice, doesn't it?
You know of another way to get that iPhone app onto the iPhone, outside of jailbreaking?
Apparently yes.
It isn't really that subtle a distinction, that you shouldn't be able to understand. If you live in one of the rural areas, yes, you can use the google service. The only limitation is on calling numbers in those areas. Whether you live in NYC or the backwoods, you can still use the service and you cannot call those numbers. Seriously, is that really that difficult to understand? It doesn't matter where you live in the continental US, you can use the service. It doesn't matter where you live in the continental US, you can't call those numbers. Do you get it yet?
Are you related to John B?
You can use the same application on a different platform.
No. You cannot. You could have it rewritten for different platforms, but isn't the same as it running on another platform. What year is it? Does this really have to be explained on a technologically focused forum?
So again, I'll ask...what options do you believe exist for selling my iPhone app, outside of the AppStore (and not through jailbreaking)? It is a rhetorical question, but you seem so very lost trying to find a way to answer it.
So if you live in one of these rural areas, you can't call your home number, your neighbours number or local business numbers, sort of defeats the purpose of having Google Voice, doesn't it?
Which is completely different than being prevented from using it. It not being useful to you doesn't equal being barred from using it. Logic is not really your strong point, is it?
Those service areas are mainly used by call centers and sex line operators. AT&T, the ones trying to have google placed under the same regs they are, actually mentions that in one of the service areas, no calls have ever been placed from the service area since it's creation.
So again, your assertion that rural users in the US would be 'banned' from GV has no basis in fact. I don't think you are being dishonest...just that you aren't able to understand.
If you aren't related to John B, perhaps you are an alias of his....the parallels are scary.
Hence it hasn't been "banned".
No. You cannot. You could have it rewritten for different platforms, but isn't the same as it running on another platform. What year is it? Does this really have to be explained on a technologically focused forum?
So again, I'll ask...what options do you believe exist for selling my iPhone app, outside of the AppStore (and not through jailbreaking)? It is a rhetorical question, but you seem so very lost trying to find a way to answer it.
Which is completely different than being prevented from using it. It not being useful to you doesn't equal being barred from using it. Logic is not really your strong point, is it?
Those service areas are mainly used by call centers and sex line operators. AT&T, the ones trying to have google placed under the same regs they are, actually mentions that in one of the service areas, no calls have ever been placed from the service area since it's creation.
So again, your assertion that rural users in the US would be 'banned' from GV has no basis in fact. I don't think you are being dishonest...just that you aren't able to understand.
If you aren't related to John B, perhaps you are an alias of his....the parallels are scary.
So Google Voice IS a discrimatory product and Apple has every right to hold of on approving it while further investigations continue.
Hence it hasn't been "banned".
My hat is off to you. You have used circular logic, false assertions and general obfuscation yet still end completely confused.
Good night John Boy
If you aren't related to John B, perhaps you are an alias of his....the parallels are scary.
No, but great minds think alike.
No, but great minds think alike.
....in utter and complete confusion?