Now that all of the letters to the FCC have been filed by Apple, AT&T and Google, we’re more carefully reading them over for interesting details. The Apple letter would seem to have the most interesting information, as it controls the App Store, and has given some new information about it. Here are some interesting tidbits.
On general app rejections:
We created an approval process that reviews every application submitted to Apple for the App Store in order to protect consumer privacy, safeguard children from inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. Some types of content such as pornography are rejected outright from the App Store, while others such as graphic combat scenes in action games may be approved but with an appropriate age rating. Most rejections are based on bugs found in the applications. When there is an issue, we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can modify the application in order for us to approve it.
On the app approval rate:
95% of applications are approved within 14 days of their submission.
On the Google Voice rejection:
Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail.
Apple has a problem with Google Voice’s phone icon, voicemail functionality and SMS functionality:
Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature.
Apple believes Google Contacts may be a security risk:
In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.
On a Google Voice web app:
Google is of course free to provide Google Voice on the iPhone as a web application through Apple’s Safari browser, just as they do for desktop PCs, or to provide its “Google-branded” user experience on other phones, including Android-based phones, and let consumers make their choices.
On AT&T’s role in the Google Voice app rejection:
Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter.
On Apple’s approval process with regards to its partners:
Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.
But, Apple does reject apps on AT&T’s behalf that are VoIP or streaming video apps (like SlingBox):
There is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T’s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T’s customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T’s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.
But VoIP apps are okay over WiFi:
Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&T’s 3G network.
A bit more on rejections:
Most rejections are based on the application containing quality issues or software bugs, while other rejections involve protecting consumer privacy, safeguarding children from inappropriate content, and avoiding applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone.
On what takes up most of app reviewers time:
Given the volume and variety of technical issues, most of the review process is consumed with quality issues and software bugs, and providing feedback to developers so they can fix applications.
The number of App Store reviewers:
There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly.
Apple now has an App Store executive review board that meets once a week:
Apple also established an App Store executive review board that determines procedures and sets policy for the review process, as well as reviews applications that are escalated to the board because they raise new or complex issues. The review board meets weekly and is comprised of senior management with responsibilities for the App Store.
On the amount of applications that get submitted:
We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted. In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and updates.
All of this information sheds some light on the mystery that has been the App Store. As we’ve noted, the approval process has seemed to improve since Senior VP Phil Schiller got personally involved. It seems likely that he’s on or even leading this App Store executive review team, though Apple doesn’t say that.
[photo: flickr/muffet]
“In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways.”
Oh, please. iTunes already gives you the option to sync your contacts list with Google Contacts. How is this any different?
yes, that statement by Apple is very, very questionable, to say the least.
most of these statements are very questionable.
Actually I thought a lot of them seemed reasonable – but that one definitely stood out as having been tacked on in order to add the powerful weapon of “privacy concerns” to their arsenal.
on deeper consideration I retract the first part of that statement. not many of these claims seem reasonable at all…
Diamonds became FREE – before it was 1$.
http://itunes.a...967307&mt=8
There is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T’s permission
>>>>>> This Agreement ensures that the Apple’s approval process is based on its partners. It does not seem to be standalone.
All of this is corporate PR [word I cannot mention].
Yeah, like which?
Just got another email from my friends in Cupertino telling me that my digital liner notes application for a band requires more study! Generally, this means it will be approved when hell freezes over. Just in time for Apple to compete.
6 months of this crap! BS…
Have you used the palm… that looks really cool in the ads? cooler than the iphone
comeon.. they just wrote whatever has the least legal repurcussions. HOPE SOME WHISTLEBLOWER IS STEPPING FORWARD AND BITING THOSE LIERS IN THE ASS.
AT&T has a HISTORY OF LYING, JUST LOOK AT THEIR MARKETING CAMPAIGNS…
The weird thing is that they didn’t mention the fact that apple rejects all other apps that have anything to do with music or could possibly be a competitor to itunes. I was hoping these docs covered that a little bit more
Or requires them to have different, crippled behaviour. My favourite example of this is the Slacker app, which is streaming only on iPhone/iPod but has the very cool sync and play offline on the Blackberry and in their own portable players.
That seems at odds with the statements about network load too – streaming over the 3G network (which works) must use more of AT&T’s bandwidth and sync’ing the music to the app at home over Wi-Fi and playing it with no network connection open.
I wonder if there is a way to bring this to court? I have most certainly spent six months of hell trying to compete in a space where Apple has little desire to allow it.
Seemed reasonable to me but only as a basis to delay it but not to deny it.
Users clearly would need opt-in to the uploading of contacts for sure otherwise it should not be allowed.
I can understand Apple’s hesitation to allow an app that basically completely usurps one of the core functions of the device.
Then again if users prefer that it would then hopefully they will allow it in time.
The main thing that would make Gvoice attractive to me is that I am assuming that voicemail and sms would be possible over IP.
My problem with ATT/Apple is that my coverage is bad at home and I miss calls, VM and SMS. If those services were propagated over IP/Wifi then I would be a much happier camper.
Browsing the app store for “voice dial”ing apps shows a lot of apps which upload your contact list to a 3rd party server. What is the difference between those and the Google Voice app in this regard? What assurances did the voice dialer apps give Apple?
So in other words, Apple will reject Google Voice because it competes with their own designed “SMS, Phone, and Voicemail” applications?
Shouldn’t we let the consumer decide wether to use the default Apple “Phone” application or the Google Voice “Phone” application?
Not necessarily. We’ve pretty much put up with phones for more than a decade much more “locked” and “tied” to the manufacturer or carrier… for the last 5 years (the haters say the iPhone is 2-5 years behind, right?) these phones and services have had the ability to be the platform for competing apps and services. But they were 100% controlled by the proprietor. That was never a problem, legally. Even if the provider had 30-40% or much more of the market (depending on how you defined it). And yet, now, when someone develops a good and successful platform (that the mere availability on can buoy a company to success), everyone gets 100% free access to it to exploit as their own? No, I don’t think so. People have to get less hysterical and ideological about “open” and realize that even “100% free” has its compromises and degrees.
When you are free to choose an Android phone or a BB or a WM phone and can jailbreak an iPhone as an individual freedom (and risk), I’m not prepared to say anyone has denied me “a freedom” or “a right” or that I’ve been “forced” into anything.
“Shouldn’t we let the consumer decide wether to use the default Apple “Phone” application or the Google Voice “Phone” application?”
That almost sounds as arbitrary as saying, “Shouldn’t Apple be able to use Microsoft’s Office code, but build their own, competing interface on top of it for consumers’ sake?”
Probably not. This situation is a bit muddier, but to say that the United States government should now intervene in what is finally becoming revolutionary (in the sense of change) in this specific matter (data/voice carrier services), at this time… I’m not sure if America is prepared for the full consequences of what some are asking for. I’m sure the government isn’t prepared or know what’s best… so, yeah, let Apple choose to limit its market share to the 5-20% who are willing to give up some freedoms for the overall product … on their own. Let Apple and Google get bloody and truly competitive — not government-approved “competition.”
I agree with your assessment but get tired of writers like MG who rail on other companies for these kind of actions, but always conveniently leave Apple off their shit list. Apple’s a big, public company more concerned with quarterly earnings than your “freedom” with the device, and that’s perfectly fine. But I hate the cult of mac shit that seems to permeate so much of the tech press. Call a spade a spade, even if it’s an iSpade.
A bit different from Apple building “their own, competing interface on top of” Office. Rather more like Apple regulating use of MacBookPro to the extent that Firefox, or Gmail, or Google Apps for Your Domain, may not be used on it. Rather more like regulating a MacBookPro to the extent that Google Mail Notifier may not be used because it duplicates the function of Mail. This, I think, should not be appropriate for a computing platform. The iPhone is a hand-held computing platform.
These platforms are the future of computing. When these devices dock to monitors things will have to change. Rather than dismissing the possibilities offhand, you should consider the power we will se in a couple of years.
The iPhone is more powerful than my PowerBook 2400c. It will be as powerful as my Air soon.
Agreed. We have had far less for a long time. Apple is a step in a positive direction. It is hard to fault a company from following their private business interests into their own line of logic. Their response is intelligently positioned.
As for the platform and its exclusive propriety, indeed this is the eye of the hurricane. Apple’s success and the greatest user experience ’should’ meet in a win-win formula; 1:1. By opening the platform up to outside developers, under definable Terms, a network is propagated which ultimately skews that 1:1 ratio in one direction or the other. Typically, as here, in the suppliers direction. But what is it really that is lacking that could keep this 1:1 ratio in check. Platforms/operating systems/socio-economic systems utilize leverage to create their branded ecosystem. Their laws codify their position on the opportunities they afford their constituents/users/consumers.
What is frustrating is the lack of empowerment in the transaction we have as consumers/users/constituents. This same argument will happen at data.gov at some point as constituents try to do things with the data on the platform that the platform ‘owner’ does not want to permit. The reason we are usually frustrated is because we lack leverage, a position of ownership in the transaction. Or do we?
Alas, I think the solution will emerge from within our community of creative constituents who are participating in this process, even if only as consumers with ears tilted for awhile yet. Our government is not structured as it should be to get involved in this discussion, our market incentives are incomplete, our legal process has not entrepreneur’d the tools to empower forward motion… so we go in circles and try to respect our best hopes and intentions while protecting the profit opportunities of private companies that add tremendous value to our world.
I guess we just need more patience huh… sux! Lets keep pushing our community to own itself as a commodity should. We each own an asset at birth, and collectively we are the marketplace.
@Tim F
Speaking from a UK perspective, what you describe never existed. You could buy an unbranded unlocked handset from any source, put the SIM in and go. You could unlock/debrand a network supplied handset and move network if you like.
Applications can be installed from any source too (Nokia has their Symbian Signed process to guarantee the software won’t brick your phone, but you can get around that without hacking for your own phone).
The iPhone comes along and changes all that. It is a phone that is only on one network (a crap one), is expensive (both upfront and monthly) and is very tightly locked down, not to mention underfeatured.
[quote=Noah]Shouldn’t we let the consumer decide wether to use the default Apple “Phone” application or the Google Voice “Phone” application?[/quote]
Sure, they can buy someone else’s phone. There is a Google option. Or maybe Government should come in and solve the problem.
So if Apple ever ported iWork ‘09 over to Windows… but then Microsoft releases a patch that prevents iWork ‘09 from running because it competes with Office 10, that would be okay?
Or if Apple releases an update that prevents Office for Mac from opening because it is similar in functionality of iWork ‘09?
It’s the same difference.
Google makes an application which is similar to some applications Apple makes, but they don’t want it to run because it’s similar (some might argue better) than the default Apple applications.
If that’s the case, then the consumers should be able to decide which program they want to run… Apple’s or Google’s.
Don’t stifle competition.
No harsh words for Apple? Shocked I tell you.
oh we have some follow up posts coming, these are just the facts as apple has presented them so they’re easy to see.
What will be interesting to see is if this stops the chorus of immediately blaming AT&T for anything that’s even close to wrong with the iPhone. Don’t get me wrong, AT&T has their fair share of missteps, but it’s okay to call out Apple on their crap sometimes too, even if you really, really like their products (and have good reason to).
At&t sucks most of the time these days but if Apple were to announce some of these issues to the media we wouldnt have sounded off on At&t like we did.. Or maybe thats what Apple wanted us to do, so that public opinion for Apple to not resign a contract with At&t will be heightened.
Lets try to keep the hyperbole to a minimum… or steve will call your precious iphone home.
Just give up on the iphone already, and accept the greatness of Android. Ok?
Hear, hear! Seriously, this is the time to show some objectivity as a ‘journalist’ (as Techcrunch bloggers prefer to call themselves these days). As Johnny said, call a spade a spade, stop all this Apple-is-good-AT&T-is-evil crap.
Only 40 reviewers for 200,000 apps? No wonder they’re having so many problems. Sounds like they need to make some new hires.
Or maybe they can switch to a community-backed review process. Much like Harmonix is doing with Rock Band Network for songs. Let the community review in-development apps to provide the vote on one of those two reviews that Apple normally does.
Or maybe they should let us sell products via iTunes, but not list them in the App Store. Then it’s up to the developer to handle marketing and Apple is only providing the technical means to sell those apps. That might be a little less feasible, but it would mitigate the worry that inappropriate content is floating around in the App Store app on the phone itself. A user would have to go elsewhere to find it in the first place. Thoughts on this? I think it has some potential, but I haven’t been able to think through all the issues.
or everyone can just jailbreak their phones, which honestly seems like the only sensible option at this point if we hope to regain control of hardware we damn well own.
Dropping apps from the app store and then it wouldn’t be an app store any more right? That would dent their profits, so its a bit illogical.
community owned seat(s) on the Board would be a start, but how would you prevent mob rule? Everyone fears the immense weight of the 13 year old girl contingency! How would that segment be weighted along with the other segments given the nature of the community to be driven by the usage metrics of those elements of our social graph with the most viral capacities? As we can see, the extreme elements percolate the loudest, and the middle ground of intelligence stays unsexy while it gets the job done day to day. Codify that in an App review process. Good ideas though…just needs some interim steps our society is lacking currently for it to be applied in reality I think.
It actually makes sense that Apple would not want their apps outright replaced. I’m shocked that the API even has that capability.
Actually, if Google was using published API calls to replace those icons, wouldn’t that mean that Apple allowed them to be replaced in the first place and can’t complain about Google’s fair use of API capabilities?
Agreed.
The API doesn’t have that capability, and these apps are not replacing anything. That’s just FUD I’m afraid. Only calls to the GV number will result in voice mails in the GV app. Folks calling your iPhone’s carrier number will still get your AT&T voicemail, and Apple’s visual voicemail experience to listen to their messages.
I couldn’t agree more!
nothing is being replaced. the google voice app doesn’t change anything on the phone. it just installs an extra icon, just like any other app.
if you click the icon, it opens up the google voice interface. from there, you can listen/read google voicemail, send sms messages and make calls.
As soon as you go back to the apple home screen you can just make regular calls on the iphone, send regular sms messages and listen to your regular iphone voicemail.
But some people want more then just regular, they want google voice. and apple is holding it back from them even though they have no reason to do so that I can think off.
Google Voice does NOT “replace” visual voicemail, period. Their wording is obviously meant to mislead the FCC in their investigation, and that is simply dishonest.
They’re making it sound as if their “phone” icon is replaced completely by the Google Voice application, and that it takes over all phone/voicemail/text operations. But it doesn’t.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by all of this, but I am. It’s always interesting to watch a successful company start smashing their fingers with their very own hammer.
Yes it does, not how you apparently are interpreting it.
By rerouting all VM’s to Google, it essentially replaces visual voicemail, since no messages will make it to visual voicemail.
That is only done if you _want_ it to be done. I, as well as many many other users, keep my Google Voice number completely separate, and only use the app in order to check and use that number in addition to my iPhone’s visual voice mail, not as a replacement.
Then dump your iphone! I want to watch tv on my iphone, but can’t. Am I crying about it? Of course not.
I watch TV on my iPhone all the time via Slingplayer and Tricker3G.
@Noah, jailbroken iphone?
Yet another fanboy, with an apple for a brain.
Oops. I didn’t realize I was feeding a troll until I saw a few of your other replies.
Please explain why you can’t accept the phone for what it is or move on to something else. The hand-wringing going on here is quite remarkable.
off base u r
That’s only if you use your GV number.
That’s like saying a Gmail client replaces Mail for MobileMe accounts, or that your landline message machine replaces visual voicemail.
The voicemails are routed to Google Voice only if someone call the GV number. If you call the number issued by AT&T that works with iPhone they still come directly to iPhone.
Apple is f’ing crazy to talk all this bullshit. They think the consumers are just a bunch of idiots.
Correction, they think FCC is a bunch of idiots.
My favorite BS moment in this response:
Google can create an iPhone web app for Google Voice, which also enables users to put the icon for it on the home screen. However, when the icon is there for a _native_ iPhone application, it confuses the user and is apparently not allowed. WTF?
Other reasons like the Google Contacts thing seem very unreasonable as well. If AT&T doesn’t force Apple’s hand, what is their real motive for rejection?
Waaaaaaah!
Wow Sanjay can u be any more of a tool?
Yeah, I’ll admit, that was a bit much. Still, people are losing it over a phone. If people don’t like Apple’s actions, they should stop being a customer. Its pretty simple.
Losing it over a phone? Are you over 60 or something?
Phones are ubiquitous these days. Everyone carries them, they are the main communication device many people have these days to interact with friends, family, etc.
The iPhone is an amazing phone, clearly the best in its class. But the monopolistic practices of Apple and AT&T ruin that for many customers.
Most of Nokia’s phones are garbage but I use them because I can use voip over 3G/HDSPA.
For the iPhone to collude with AT&T like this and force its users to use technology the way AT&T want them to is evil.
Stopping using iPhone is not mutually exclusive from commenting on Apple’s hypocrisy and double-speak. It is that simple.
Personally, I believe Apple has a right to decide whatever they want on the phone and people can express whatever opinions they have about Apple.
If Apple doesn’t want bad publicity for their decisions, then they should examine their policies, not send one of their fanboys to try to stifle discussion (which is futile anyway).
Of all of the issues this one is the easiest to see. What Apple doesn’t want is to lose the relationship with the user that they have right now with the way the iPhone works. With any of the Google applications, Google owns that relationship. They control the portal, they control the the delivery and they (eventually) will control the ad revenue stream that can be associated with it. Rather than single Google out and end up in court for it, its easier to nuke an entire category of applications under the guise of “avoiding applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone.” That statement really says everything that needs to be said – they own that customer relationship and they intend to keep it that way. The moment people start using Google Apps they become portable users and Apple must compete with people on a hardware basis which is the ass-end of the marketplace. Hell many application developers should be glad Apple is stirring the pot to a certain extent, because many app devs don’t want Google owning that relationship either.
Clearly thought out and articulated. You, my friend, get an A+.
on the money.
Yep.
well considering how both apple and google are under investigation for possible mixed interests, since one of google’s boardmembers was also a boardmember for apple.
a week later suddenly apple denies a major google app for no apparent reason,
a month later before mentioned google boardmember is kicked out of apple board.
i mean to me its perfectly clear whats happening.
The apple in the picture should have been as rotten as Apple and its explanations
It isn’t all too far back in history that we see Bill Gates on the cover of our newspapers plastered next to an Internet Explorer icon. When will these companies learn? Defaults are fine. The lack of choice is not fine. I hate to say it, but I’d much rather have limits put on my data usage than to be told what applications I can run on my own device. What really is the difference between downloading 5 MB of a song on iTunes or using up 5 MB on a Skype VoIP call over AT&T’s network? Oh I know… it begins with a $.
What would people be sayiing if Microsoft prevented Firefox or Thunderbird from being installed on Vista because it might confuse users or duplicate existing Vista funcitonality?
Hey Apple, welcome to the big leagues. You’ve gotten away with all this crap for way too long. Glad to see the evil Apple finally shine through…
I’m ready for Microsoft to become cool again!
Wow you really know how to pick a lesser evil, don’t you? I’m glad to see this is about choice.
Again? I don’t remember them ever being “cool” and I’ve been a computer geek since 1981.
you clearly havent been paying attention then. or does computer geek mean apple fanboy in your book?
Wow. So if Apple is so concerned about customer privacy, UI experience, blah blah blah, I assume at some point they will start banning specific applications from running on their desktop OS as well?
Honestly, I don’t see what the difference is – they are restricting consumers from installing applications that they deem are bad for them (the consumer).
But like Mossolini’s dictatorship, at least the trains all run on time
An interesting response by Apple. Definitely not a very convincing reason.
It appears that they are defending themselves using their uber-obsession with controlling the user-interface as an excuse. While they have absolutely every right to control apps that change the actual Apple interfaces, they can’t argue that an app like Google Voice is going to confuse consumers.
If a person is going to download Google Voice they know full well what it is, how it works, and how it relates to Apple’s calling features. I certainly hope the people investigating this get to use an iPhone to compare the interfaces so they can see for themselves that this is BS.
Oh no, this numpad looks slightly different than the iPhone one! How will I ever learn how to use it? Oh no, my voice mail has been converted into written English so I can read it! I don’t understand how to read something that I originally could only hear!
You dismiss the user experience like its a trivial matter. If you want to truly understand Apple, look at it through their eyes. The holistic user experience is everything to Apple. It is what makes them great. The iphone isn’t just a piece of meat to them. Instead, it almost has a life of its own. Why do you think they refer to it as “iPhone” instead “an iphone”? If you look at it that way, Apple’s actions become understandable.
But Apple’s explanations are so unauthentic, because they fail to explain why they originally approved GV Mobile and other apps that worked with Google Voice. If they were so concerned with these matters, why didn’t they reject these as well. These sound more like justifications after the fact.
Then what’s your theory?
Who knows why Apple decided to reject the app, but the reasons they give are not persuasive. I understand their interest in preserving the user experience, but as others have noted, those savvy enough to download the program are probably savvy enough not to be confused by having voicemails appear in 2 different places or distinguishing between dialers. It’s an optional program and if it is anything like GV Mobile, which I have, it really doesn’t take over the iPhone.
I think the simplest explanation is that they were protecting AT&T interests, even if not contractually obligated to. The app does threaten profits from SMS messages. This is similar to the concern about allowing VOIP on 3G and why SKype, Truphone, etc. are only allowed to work on WiFi. And they may be wary of Google as a competitor. Who knows.
Rather simple, it affects the business model. Google Voice will reduce some amount of usage dollars for AT&T right from the start. Other apps based on GV didn’t have the reach of Google to spread its usage. Apple cannot compete with Grand Central part of Google.
A lot of SMS messages will start flowing through GV right now. If Grand Central evolves into even more full featured Unified communications, then people will migrate to using the GV number even if it doesn’t have the fancy UI Apple might do for a basic phone service. Apple doesn’t have the resources or the expertise to run a phone center to compete with it and will have to depend on AT&T to do it, which reduces its margins.
AT&T with reduced revenues from GV usage will want to subsidize less of the iPhone which means the margins for Apple will go down.
All of the above may be perfectly reasonable reasons for Apple to not want to allow GV, but the hypocrisy/obfuscation in their answers is rather shameful.
So, if I’m calculating correctly, each reviewer has to finish an app every 6 minutes all day long (an 8 hour shift) to keep up with the influx.
6 minutes isn’t a very long time.
Some huge portion of those numbers must be generic mass-updates that require little to no actual reviewing, and Apple is just trying to sound strained.
Well, actually, they said, *2* reviewers working on each app, so it’s an app every *3* minutes per day, ¿qué no?
Who the f*ck works 8 hours a day? Are you in a union or something?
To me what’s interesting is 8,500 submissions a week for 40 people to review.
40 ppl x 40 hours = 1600 man hours per week.
That’s about 11.5 average minutes for each app. That’s a hell lot of porn to be dismissing outright.
But the reality is that they’re not keeping up. It used to be 95% in 7 days – notice that statistic just jumped to 95% in 14 days.
And they’re right. It was a fairly consistent 7 day process for a while. Then it all went to hell just before the 3.0 launch, and now things are settling back to 14 days on average.
It’s actually less than 11.5 minutes per app. They say that each app/update is reviewed by *at least 2* reviewers. So if each reviewer did the same level of review per app, that’s less than 6 minutes per app (even less if more than 2 review an app, which I suspect is exceedingly rare).
Although since they say “more than 40″ reviewers that average might bump up a bit. Though my guess is “more than 40″ means between 41 and 44. Even if it’s 44 that’s only an average of 6.2 minutes/submission.
Not to mention that those 6 minutes aren’t all spent even using the app — that time must also include their approval/rejection actions and all that valuable feedback they’re apparently providing developers.
Finally, some transparency from Apple!
No way they approve 95% of apps within 14 days. That would suggest that, assuming approved apps get the green light within 14 days, they only regect 5%.
As Guy says, bullshitake.
Possibly, but remember, that 95% claim includes the 20% that initially had problems but got worked out eventually.
5% of 8500 = 450 rejected apps per/week, some 22,000 rejected apps a year. That’s still a ton of rejected apps, no matter how you slice it.
I love the irony in all of this. Before the App Store, it was all Apple butt kissing and praise for it’s products. Fast forward to mid 2009 and Apple are becoming just as unpopular as Microsoft used too be, and now they’re turning around.
It’s strange how Microsoft seems to be making right decisions and good products lately and Apple seems to be making good products limited by corporate greed.
Corporate greed got nobody anywhere. Look what it did to Microsoft with it’s anticompetitive fines.
its cause microsoft opened its eyes to community input.
I saw this movie yesterday and it immediately reminded me of apple.
Antitrust: http://www.imdb...itle/tt0218817/
Apple’s response to the FCC creates a few interesting questions that Apple might not have the answer to. As I understand it, Apple’s Visual Voicemail utilizes Google’s servers in the background. Has this changed? This faux security risk maybe just reflects an insecure Apple. Regardless Apple’s Visual Voicemail running on a Google backend or Google Voice on a Google backend, there is no difference as either way Google is hosting the retention of voice messages. The consumer chose the number and they choose the app, what is the problem? Needless to say, the data belongs to the user, any assurances from Google should be to the user, not Apple. Sure Cupertino loves to make themselves the martyr, with how much they do to protect the users. No one asked them to be the official taster and I am certain given the number of jail broken phones out there, many would like Apple to behave as they do with the computers and just sell the phone and get out the way. ‘Oh by the way govna, you will keep those updates coming right?’
In possession of a healthy amount of admiration and awe for Apple, I agree that they do put a great deal of effort into the design and workings of the iPhone along with their other products. I just happen to believe that they are compensated for that upon the purchase of the product. The functional condition is whether or not the Google Voice app will prevent the ordinary operation of the phone and updates. If not, there should be no issue. It is a great phone, but ultimately it should be up to the consumer which interface they choose to use, not Apple.
Sadly no matter how much time spent in the kitchen creating a work of art, there’s always going to be someone resorting to ketchup. Among ketchups, I guess Google would be Heinz 57.
AT&T hosts the messages and they are loaded locally to the iPhone over their network. Google has no interaction with the visual voicemail process outside of the Google Voice application.
Apple has a powerful connection with the user through it’s own set of applications that currently run the iPhone and this is something Apple does not want to lose. Assuming the Google Voice application did launch, a primary connection between Apple, the iPhone, and their relationship with the user would be broken. This would be comparable to Apple having a link next to the “Docs” link on Google’s homepage linking users to their own set of online documentation tools (which have access to the files on Google’s servers, as well). That would break Google’s relation to the user. Neither company would want to lose that bond…
Apple can do that. They can create an iGoogle widget that links to apple’s doc app (if thet had one).
I just download the Google iPhone voice app today. It is kick ass! I can see why Apple would be scared The phone UI just about kills that of Apples. There was a minor bug in the SMS portion but i’ll get over that. Just to point out, non of the contacts that I have in my phone were transfered onto my Google voice contact list. Wether Google is just holding them for safe keep or is planning world domination, I see no apparition that Google has cached my contacts. Also, just so you know my iPhone 3Gs is jailbroken.
No you didn’t.
I just download the Google iPhone voice app today. It is kick ass! I can see why Apple would be scared The phone UI just about kills that of Apples. There was a minor bug in the SMS portion but i’ll get over that. Just to point out, non of the contacts that I have in my phone were transfered onto my Google voice contact list. Wether Google is just holding them for safe keep or is planning world domination, I see no apparition that Google has cached my contacts. Also, just so you know my iPhone 3Gs is jailbroken.
AAPL’s answer? There’s an app for that!
At the iPhone 3.0 keynote, they app approval percent was 96% – it’s dropped a bit.
“There is a provision in Apple’s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T’s permission.”
This explain why Skype’s iPhone app can’t use the cell network to place a VOIP call. Skype Mobile on every other app allows just that, and it is awesome.
I don’t understand what you mean. On my Nokia using an application called Nimbuzz I use the AT&T data network to place calls via Skype all the time. Are you saying that the iPhone Skype application does not allow you to use the AT&T data network to place VoIP calls? If so, wow, that’s another example of Apple collaborating to stifle open innovation and competition.
Yes, that is what I am saying. On a Nokia here is what is happening (as you probably know):
1. You select a number to call via Skype Mobile.
2. The phone communicates with Skype servers via the data network, sending your phone number, you account details and the number you are calling (at least I guess so)
3. Your phone then dials a local number. Skype recognises your number (because of step 2), and forwards your call.
The phone call probably uses your inclusive minutes, but not your data. On an iPhone, Skype will only work over a WiFi connection.
Does that make sense?
(If I’m wrong on this, please let me know!)
So Apple bitched about Microsoft and Internet Explorer, now I have a choice, NOW Apple will not let me choose what dialer I use!!!! Sorry Bastards they are!
Considering how pro-iPhone (and Apple) everyone at Techcrunch has been until recently, does this finally change their opinion about the platform? This letter is an explanation of Apple’s walled-garden approach to technology innovation. Outsiders are permitted to contribute to the extent that they do not create competition with Apple. I admit this approach has created positive consumer experience. But ultimately it dampens the full technological and economic potential of the platform. Promote the iPhone and your promoting closed system business models and limited technology innovation.
I still have my doubts but this on the surface at least proves my initial thoughts was utterly wrong.
Though my position on the whole app reviewing process stands the same. It needs a structural overhaul and a rather drastic one. 8000 apps per week with 40 some full-time reviewers are just crazy.
Apple: We didn’t REJECT the google voice app, we just didn’t approve it….
Nice.
40 friggin app store reviewers for how many thousands of apps so far? …..50,000??
No wonder. For da luv of gawd!!! Apple needs 400….no FOUR THOUSAND trained reviewers if they want to continue growing.
No wonder it takes so damn long to get app approval. Two week approvals? 95% get approved and developers with rejected apps are advised as to how to have the apps fixed?
YEAHHHHHHH RIGHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!
They definetely manage to dodge the spirit of the questions quite well. Will be interesting to now read the FCC’s response.
Again a sensationalist prefix in the headline of an otherwise fine article. Keep it mature, guys.
I would like the referee to throw the BS flag on this play. This is ridiculous.
Nobody has mentioned that the FCC is not asking the million dollar question. The FCC needs to ask AT&T:
Q: Would you have ANY concerns and/or objections if Apple decides to approve Google Voice for use on the iPhone including Text, 3G, Voicemail, etc..
I can understand how developers get frustrated by apple’s alleged lack of transparency with the approval process and as a consumer I want to have the ability to buy the best applications but Apples’s point regarding buggy software is very valid.
I’ve jailbroken my phone twice, and also reverted back twice.
When jailbroken I have to reboot by iPhone several times a day but when running only apple approved apps I only reboot every few weeks.
How could apple helpdesk, and reputation, ever survive the complaints from millions of normal consumers who installed software that’s not been properly tested?