Google has released a full version of its response to the FCC’s inquiry on Apple’s ban of Google Voice from the App Store, revealing the answer to ‘Question 2′ that had been redacted from the letter that was released in August. Question 2 asked Google to detail Apple’s stated reasons for rejecting both Google Voice and Google Latitude from the App Store, as well as any communication that had gone on between the parties involved. Google’s response? Apple told them the same line about “duplicating the iPhone’s core functionality” that it was giving third party developers.
No incriminating back-alley conversations. Google wasn’t trying to hide anything that could have hurt it in any way. It was just trying to give Apple a chance to take the high road. Instead, Apple apparently lied through its teeth to the FCC.
The story so far: late last July, Apple abruptly pulled all third party Google Voice iPhone applications, which had been on the App Store for months without any problems. Apple stated that these were somehow “duplicating” the iPhone’s functionality, which was a no-no. At the time Google said it was still working on its own official application, but later that day we broke the news that Google had in fact submitted its app weeks earlier, only to have it shot down by Apple. The FCC soon launched an inquiry to investigate why the application had really been rejected.
Three weeks later AT&T, Apple, and Google provided their responses to the FCC. AT&T, which had played the role of scapegoat in the debacle, proved to have little (if anything) to do with the decision. Google’s letter did its best to outline exactly what Google Voice does. And Apple spouted blatant lie after blatant lie in its inaccurate description of Google Voice, going as far as to imply that Google might be doing something nefarious with user data (though, of course, there are a number of Google apps that come pre-installed on the iPhone). And Apple triumphantly responded that it in fact had not actually rejected Google Voice (neener-neener), but that it was still “pondering” over what to make of the application.
This last point is the most interesting, because Google’s response directly contradicts it. In fact, Google’s previously redacted response explicitly says multiple times that both Google Voice and Google Latitude were rejected, in no uncertain terms. And, of course, Apple’s other claims are laughable. There are countless apps on the App Store that “duplicate” the iPhone’s functionality in some form, and the notion that users might get confused about the apps is ridiculous too — after all, users have to manually install these apps. The real reason for the ban is likely that Apple doesn’t want its device to turn into a platform dominated by Google services.
But one big question remains: why would Google redact the answer to Question 2 in the first place? Google’s response really only shows us that Apple stonewalled them the way they stonewalled everyone else (though Google did at least get some face time with Apple’s Phil Schiller). The real reason, I think, is that Google wanted to give Apple a chance to save face and let Google Voice into the App Store. Question 2 is the only place where Google explicitly says that its applications were rejected — the rest of them detail things like the way Google Voice works and whether or not Google has any more apps pending with Apple (it doesn’t). By redacting its response to Question 2, Google gave Apple the chance to make its ridiculous “pondering” claims, say it was all a misunderstanding, and let Google Voice into the app store a few days or weeks later.
But it’s been a month since those letters were released, and neither Google Voice nor Google Latitude have made their way to the App Store. Google could have fought the Freedom of Information Act requests that sought the unedited letter, but there really isn’t much point any more. It’s time to remove any doubt as to who the bad guy is here: Apple.
9182009_Google_Filing_iPhone –
Image by brankomaster.
Ok now its time for Apple to just approve the app without causing itself more trouble and negative publicity then it needs..
if their decision to reject this app sticks, then I feel Google should offer it’s app to the i-Phone users via FREE download.
your comment is worthless. learn to iphone.
The Google Voice app will be on it no matter what. Why all the BS, FCC? C’mon Barack, fire those guys.
The issue isn’t with the FCC, but with Apple. Apple for some reason believes their users a morons and do not want to “confuse” us with different or same functionality. In the end, its up the the user to download these applications, so if they want to confuse themselves its up to them. These apps aren’t being included on the iPhone by default, so why worry about confusion its not Apple’s responsibility?
This is not about this App or even Apple. This is about Google wanting to force the carriers’ hands on net neutrality.
How? AT&T will be allowing Google Voice on other smartphones aren’t they? Tmobile already does. How will this reflect on the carriers?
TMobile is not a dominant carrier in the marketplace so it can afford to take risks that AT&T can not. Further it is not about how it reflects on the carrier AT&T is much more concerned about potential lost revenues, which is understandable.
What is that stuff you are smoking? Are you anti-neutrality too?
K, if you want to sling insults at least be man or woman enough to use your real name. My statement did not take a stance of either pro or anti net neutrality and that is my stance. However, if our country desires a robust reliable technology infrastructure you don’t allow free riders to syphon off the carrier’s incentive to make investments in that infrastructure.
MG and Gruber have killed the lil birdie.
why? apple build the iphone, they have the right to select which application should run on their device.
you wouldn’t say that about your computer, or would you?
you can no longer visit this website. because we built your computer, we have the right to what you see and what you can’t see, what you use and what you can’t use.
Computer makers reject apps all the time. Those apps are called viruses.
Actually, if you really wanted to, you could install whatever virus you wanted to on your own computer.
It would just be incredibly stupid of you.
That just sounded stupid.
i don’t think Google Voice is a virus, even then I could still install a virus it would just be stupid like Trae said. Here what I think went down: Apple rejects both apps and pray this would just go away, shit goes public, everybody complains, FCC asks questions, Apple realizes they made a mistake by rejecting the apps and say “well we’re still looking at it”, Google redacts its answer to give Apple a chance to come clean, Apple doesn’t come clean, Google says “fuck you”
Since when did a computer maker reject a virus? Users do, not the manufacturer. Microsoft (not a manufacturer) doesn’t reject virus, just tries to ensure no applications can install themselves without your knowledge. There is only so much they can do too.
Sorry, no, a web site /= software. Software is written to run on an OS, not in a browser.
Funny, as I recall, you can access google voice on the iphones browser.
Apple might be dicks, but eesh – iphone users, quit acting like sissies.
Doesn’t make any sense Mat. The iPhone GV app offers a significantly better experience than the web GV interface.
true..but all other mobile platforms have open app networks. If you haven’t noticed, people will eventually leave in order to get what might be better..
No they won’t. Look at the sales numbers. People don’t know or care enough about issues like this to make them migrate in any noticeable way to another service. The iPhone’s benefits far outweigh the negatives that people generally perceive about it (this is based on sales, not on my opinion, though I agree with it).
This is not about Apple thinking users are stupid and going to get confused, that is just an excuse. It is about Apple being scared that their phone is becoming a different kind of GooglePhone and that networks won’t bend to their demands to the same degree because users will be able to circumvent the networks to a greater and greater degree.
This is the same kind of thing that happened to the music industry. Big giants not realizing that everything is going to change so they hold on for as long as they can to their revenue streams, not realizing they are preventing their ability to be ahead of the curve when things DO change.
Once the airwaves are freer, and you can use any device with any network, then you won’t see issues like this. The networks/Apple just want to make as much money as possible before this because they think they won’t be able to make as much money if they aren’t screwing their customers over with such limitations.
They are wrong of course. They will continue to make money, just like music will continue to exist despite piracy.
Yes, why don’t we look at the numbers as you suggest. As of the last independently verifiable smartphone numbers I can find (Gartner Q2 09), Nokia has 45% of the market, RIM has around 18% of the market, and Apple pretty much tied with Windows Mobile at around 13%, with Linux (including Android) bringing up the rear at around 10%.
Explain to me again about how people won’t choose another platform when Apple is pretty much tied at third with Windows Mobile, and only 3% ahead of Linux/Android? For all the hype, and all the coverage, in the past year Apple has gone from being tied with the generic Linux bundled on no-name phones, to being tied with Windows Mobile, which at least until Apple declared 13% to make them the most successful product ever made, was considered a disappointing failure, and seriously under performing.
@reachconnectio
it’s because of morons like you that apple is getting away with this shit.
Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies.
By your logic, RC, you would also believe:
“Sony built the walkman, they have the right to select which tapes you can play”
…since an audio tape is simply instructions to a device on how it shall operate. A.k.a., ’software’.
Wrong logic. Sony Walkman was sold under the representation that you could put any (standard) tape in it. iPhone wasn’t. Sony COULD have created a device that only played their tapes and nobody else’s and as long as it was represented as such, would have been legal. It wouldn’t have succeeded at that time but that is different from whether they would have the right to do so. iPhone is sold with the representation that you can only download apps from Apple’s AppStore on which they have full control.
No, my Sony Walkman analogy holds, because the iPhone is fully capable of running the Apps which are being maliciously rejected.
And so there is a legal conundrum here, which is this:
Why are perfectly good computer programs being rejected by Apple?
The answer isn’t so clear, because apparently Apple is willing to LIE to avoid the question!
Which begs another question: What the hell is motivating Apple to lie?
The mysterious motive begs the ultimate question: If creepy Apple execs are motivated enough to shock the World and reject scores of great Apps which they appallingly shouldn’t be, then LIE to the world and the FCC to cover up the full extent of their malice, gosh then might these same creeps perhaps not also be malicious enough to have lied, and be LYING, for this same purpose, to CUSTOMERS at other points in time?!
On TV, in its advertising, for example? Absent third-party applications, the iPhone would not be anywhere near as useful or desirable. In fact, I wouldn’t have even bothered upgrading to a 3G in ‘08!
Alas, all the wild cornucopias of Apps we see spilling out of iPhones on TV are a FRAUD! The open development platform, as it’s hyped by Apple to programmers, is equally a fraud! LOL, these poor suckers aren’t programming handheld computers! clearly iPhone is NOT a handheld computer — it’s a freaking marketing console! App developers might as well be composing CDs for Gift shop Soundscape Kiosks!
Randy, you missed the point. It is not the technology of whether it can run that is the issue but the conditions with which the manufacturer provides the device to the customer.
Sony could have created a walkman that could only play tapes that were purchased from Sony even if it was capable of playing other tapes technically except for a signature put on the tapes bought from Sony.
But Sony didn’t sell the Walkman as a device capable of playing only tapes bought from Sony but it could have. iPhone is represented and sold as a device that can only run apps bought from the AppStore (not technically) but as the definition of the product for which there is a legal transaction. Users have no rights or expectation (other than jail-breaking) to expect any app they would like in the AppStore. That is why they are different.
As to why they are lying, it is simply because they don’t want to admit that they will refuse any app that affects their business model, partly because they cannot clearly define what those criterion is. So they stand to lose some developer interest if they were to admit that with no clear criterion. I am not justifying this. Apple wants to have their cake and eat it too. But this is a matter between the developers and Apple not a rights issue between customers and Apple.
Facebook has been accused of doing similar things as well if the app interferes with their own plans.
For all the crap that Microsoft has gotten over the years, they did not pull this kind of stunt that Facebook and Apple (with iPhone) do on their platforms.
That would be a very interesting subject for an article: up to what extent is a hardware company allowed to control what software runs on it.
Apple is benefiting from the work of thousands of developers who create apps on the iPhone, yet they insist on having complete control over what goes through. Facebook also does the same thing but it’s almost completely open about what they allow. But when Microsoft did it, it was an antitrust scandal.
Jason, consider doing a bit of research about this. it would be interesting to get to the legal side of the matter
You guys are slow today. Apparently Apple has already contacted Engadget about the story and said that – “We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter. Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google.”.
Not that I believe them, but that’s the latest from Apple’s side.
Well then that is certainly possible as in ALL business the buffoon in one undeserved role general doesnt know what the buffoon in another undeserved, a mere 5 feet away from him, is doing.
You can see this from the customer service peon level right on up to the top brASS in any company. They’re mostly all idiots who do not know what the hell is going on.
Well, duh! Of course they’d say that! They were the ones who lied in the first place!
It is very simple, Google would make apple’s core mapping and GPS apps obsolete. Think of the money they spent on RD, of course they wanna protect their investment. Smart but dick move on apple’s part.
Where do you think the data for that maps app comes from?
and you know that the mapping/GPS apps that come pre-installed in iPhone are based on google services, right?
Are the apps google powered? or just based off of google architecture?
The map app is “Google Maps”. 100% Google powered.
When you get out-innovated, Microsoft your competition. Isn’t that right Apple?! You guys make me puke.
Solution: Apple and Google should create a partnership entity (like MS and Accenture’s Avanade), and work together to create the *best* software for the iPhone: call it Gapple.
That’s what they were doing, but now Google is a direct competitor to Apple, perhaps even bigger than Microsoft.
With people moving to mobile Google’s Android and Apple’s iPhone OS X are the new Windows and Mac OS X. In addition to that Apple has recently built one of the worlds biggest data centres so they may encroach even more on Google’s business.
It may seem far-fetched now, but Google – a search engine – competing with Microsoft Office sounded strange not so long ago too…
Apple completely rejected Microsoft in the late 80s, fired Jobs, and almost went bankrupt.
A decade passes. Apple realized its mistake, swallowed its pride, hired Jobs back in 96′/97′, and that day announced a *partnership* with Microsoft for porting the Office applications to the Mac at Macworld. The crowd boos Steve Jobs, but the partnership saved Apple.
Why Apple is not learning from their own company history is a mystery to me.
Apple need to change their iPhone strategy soon. They have had a few years where they could dominate the smart phone market but now we are getting more and more worthy competitors. Open up the app platform and scrap exclusivity. It would remove most of the current complaints with the iPhone. No longer are smartphones high end gadgets that people will pay silly money for and ignore the small problems. Apple needs to change tack within the next year if it wants to maintain dominance.
I agree but not at the risk of potentially destroying their business model. AT&T becoming a dumb pipe provider and Apple becoming a commoditized device manufacturer does not help their business models. They will need to respond to competition however and it will be interesting to see whether competition will force them in that direction. It is not clear it necessarily will as long as Apple keeps innovating and provides a device that people want more than others and more than net neutrality.
Since when is Microsoft a verb? lol, nice one though.
Does anybody know if Google is releasing these apps for other PDA’s and smartphones?
*cough*Android*cough*, and Blackberry.
well I guess if Google can’t take over this app market at least they can help level the playing field against Apple.
You would think Apple would want to match anything Andriod has to offer right?..
They already have released them on Andriod and Blackberry..
Are companies “under oath” when they answer questions like this in writing? If so, the government needs to hit Apple (or maybe Google, if its answer is the incorrect one) with felony perjury charges against every executive and lawyer who approved that letter. If it doesn’t, the government is effectively saying that it’s okay for big companies to lie to us.
when you have a pack of lawyers around of your neck, the definition of ‘lie’ becomes very vague… I bet, they could prove that their answer was not a lie but misunderstanding of the question.. whatever…
I’m so gladed that the government is going to do right think here. We should leave this type of importent decision to our governing bodies
This is bizarre and disappointing – but somehow I think Microsoft could be jealous about not being in this here fight
That’s a great indicator of Microsoft’s current irrelevance in consumer electronics: even though Windows Mobile had years of head start, the only discussion that matters is Google vs. Apple.
Actually if you want to talk about irrelevance you should look to Palm who had years of experience before Microsoft and Apple started in on the mobile market and who is now a trivial footnote.
I think Apple is ridiculous and anyone that defends Apple is contradictory (unless they defend any company that acts like Apple).
The solution would be for Apple to accept all applications that do not harm the iPhone (by harm I mean harming the hardware or software, not sales/marketshare). Only apps that violate local/Federal laws should be rejected.
If Microsoft did this with Windows they would be receiving the worse press in the world from every outlet imaginable. Apple and the iPhone should be treated with the same scrutiny as Microsoft and Windows.
What’s the big picture here? It’s not about the App Store. Apple is perfectly allowed to sell/distribute whatever the hell they want in their store.
It’s about who owns the damn iPhone. I do! And I’m allowed to put whatever the hell I want to put on it.
The solution is the forcing of Apple to allow third party application distribution like Cydia. Above the board… not jailbroken.
Anything else is pure nonsense. Could you imagine a car manufacturer dictating what kind of gas you could burn in your car, or what kind of fuzzy dice you could hang from the mirror AFTER you bought it? Or a clothing manufacturer dictating what pants you were allowed to wear with a shirt AFTER you bought it? Pure nonsense.
Very insightful comment.
but while the app store is a monopoly for the iphone, is it right for them to reject apps because they compete with their own?
would walmart get away with not selling other brands toilet cleaner, because they’d just launched their own?
Yes, they would if a company wanted to give the toilet cleaner free at that store because they were getting paid by the ads on that cleaner so no one would buy Walgreen’s toilet cleaner.
Not an exact analogy but the situation is more complicated than the original.
If Google wanted to sell the app on the iPhone and share revenues with Apple and share revenues with AT&T and not lead to customer churn for them, then there would be no problem.
The above is not justifying in any way, Apple’s despicable behavior in not telling the truth.
The solution is to build web based apps that are platform and OS independent.
perhaps not web based, but at least standards that tell you how to create an app that works on different phones. its a very good idea, talked about this with a friend today, it would be great if we could create apps that run on android, iphone and windows mobile
That will be almost impossible to pull off since Andriod, iPhone and Windows are all completely different OS.
Ever hear of Java, hotshot?
This has actually been Steve Job’s goal from day one. Back when the iPhone was formally announced the heavy emphasis was on web applications, and developers being able to write apps that run through the web interface.
From their announcement about applications:
http://www.appl...6/11iphone.html
They didn’t want to create an SDK/App Store or any such nonsense.
Of course the developers didn’t like this, at all. They were being forced away from their safe world of writing for an OS on to writing for Web. On a basic level they faced having ongoing hosting costs vs just straight development time costs.
The really, utterly dumb thing is that if you write a web application for web 2.0 properly, you’ll end up with more users because not just the iPhone would work with it.
simple solution, sell iphone, buy android phone!
its hard to force apple to change their politics but its easy just buy another phone
Car manufacturers DO exactly that. Ever read your warranty? Change some functional part of your car (and really, an app live GV is more like a new exhaust system than fuzzy dice) and see how well you do getting the manufacturer to perform any warranty work on your car.
Car manufacturers also take proactive measures to prevent you from making such changes. Take a look under your hood and see how many of the fasteners under there are one-way or tell-tale.
My guess is that most people never really thought about these things, and are willing to accept the trade-off that their car is cheaper/more reliable/whatever because the engineers locked them out from making certain changes vs. figuring out how to accommodate them.
For many consumers, I would bet the calculation looks similar with respect to the iPhone. Now, as a techy owner, I would *love* to be able to do whatever I wanted to my phone, but I’d bet that my mom would trade away lots of customize-ability in favor of something that “just works.” That may be a false dilemma in many people’s eyes, but I believe it exists nonetheless.
This is obviously a move from the marketing side of apple. Get you to use an iphone and you will try a mac, then anything else they shove your way. Then they get you to buy apps, 100% up-marked ram, etc. Think about it from apples point of view. You get all your contacts on google and then migrating to a new phone just doesn’t seem as problematic. People dread migrating to a new phone because of the contacts and how they are used the UI. with google voice, Then oranges and grapes seem just as fruity. Like it was stated earlier apple would just be Ip addresses.
“Change some functional part of your car and see how well you do getting the manufacturer to perform any warranty work on your car.”
At the risk of belaboring the analogy…
The FTC actually has laws in place protecting the consumer from such ‘tactics’ by automobile manufacturers. Thus my point that Apple should be ‘forced’ to allow third-party app installation (to protect the consumer). In effect, your counter is a myth:
http://www.dumm...nty-intact.html
“The relevant legislation here, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty – Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act of 1975, protects consumers from being wrongfully denied warranty coverage by new car dealers.”
“It’s about who owns the damn iPhone. I do! And I’m allowed to put whatever the hell I want to put on it.”
As far as I can tell, Apple is not denying that in any way. They ‘just’ are not willing to help every iPhone owner to do what he wants with his iPhone.
You even seem to agree with that, as you state: “Apple is perfectly allowed to sell/distribute whatever the hell they want in their store”.
This entire fiasco seems like it could have been avoided if Apple and AT&T had announced early in the process that services that leverage the carrier’s network to directly compete with the carrier’s wireless offering are prohibited. This is a defendable position. If Google Voice wants to run over Wi-fi networks so be it, disable any portions of the application that would allow the selection of AT&T’s network as the transport mechanism and the application could be approved.
In my opinion Google wanted to pick a fight around wireless net neutrality and thanks to Apple’s and AT&T’s fumbling of this situation this turns out to be their first salvo.
And how, exactly, is Google Voice competing with AT&T? It uses your wireless minutes. It makes using them easier. I don’t get this insistence that this is bad for AT&T. It’s great for AT&T.
It makes SMS free and it disassociates the phone number you use from the iPhone’s phone number so your number becomes completely portable from the device and from the carrier. iPhone’s phone number then just becomes the IP address equivalent for the phone and AT&T just a dumb pipe provider not being able to leverage value added services on it. That is the crux of the problem without wanting to take sides between them.
Jaki you are incorrect – it uses the data channel of iPhone, which is unlimited for the most part, while syphoning off SMS, long distance and even overage fees from the carriers.
Our Indalo chat app also was rejected, no reason given. We are no Google an the FCC isn’t going to give a flip, so we are even more hosed.
I gave the app a NC-17 rating because of all the smack talk on the network, perhaps that is the reason.
http://www.indalo.com
Now that Google’s CEO has left the Apple board, sh!t is really gonna hit the fan…. and so it begins!
I’m just glad you guys are still on top of this. I was just thinking today that maybe Apple was just counting on this blowing over. I really, really want Google Voice on my iPhone and I appreciate you guys keeping your voices up over this.
Thanks!
HAHA
I love it.
Has the thought occurred that Google and Apple know exactly what they are doing to collectively force the issue of wireless net neutrality?
I’m sure that Apple is no fan of the way ATT runs things – maybe they are being stealthy about the issue…
Only if they can jointly show it to be because of AT&T. Apple is the one taking responsibility for it and AT&T has come out looking relatively clean in this.
I wouldn’t bother too much about this anymore.
We will soon see the next world OS, used by everyone 24/7 on his mobile, even more important than Windows nowadays.
The gravity of operating systems, once they are mass market, points clearly to “there can be only one” in the long term.
From Windows we can learn two key criteria for a world os:
1) Be available for 3rd party hardware manufactorers (give me the right to choose the hardware)
2) Be open for applications (give me the right to choose the software)
Apple had the unique chance to reach a world-dominating position by doing the right decisions this year.
Well, they decided negative on both key criteria, so they will become unavoidably some niche OS.
Of course google did all they could to make this clear to everyone, as now there are only two OS left in the race, WinMo and Android.
All this was being played quite clever by google.
Seems like 2008 / 2009 is the year Steve Jobs lost the biggest chance he ever had in his life, the chance to dominate the software world for 7 billion people.
Google should disable the ability of the iPhone to utilize its maps. That would kill the Maps application on the iPhone, and tell Apple, “approve the GV app if you want the maps back”
Hell… once google maps (or any other applications – like analytics etc) are removed from iPhone, I will say ciao to my current iPhone love affair.. it sucks.
If you are against Apple’s policies, do not buy its products. By continuing to consume its products, you’re not giving Apple a reason to change its ways.
werent microsoft fined multi billion dollars for just packaging IE with windows? surely what apples does is worse, mircrosoft wouldnt stop you from downloading netscape (in those days) if you wanted to, would they, could they!?
also, isnt this what led to apple only having a few percent of the home computer market (am i allowed to call a mac a pc?) didnt they pretty much insist on creating all of their own software donkeys years ago, rather than opening the platform?
most people seem to think that the mac is far better than windows, and yet microsoft absolutely dominates, you would think at some point apple would get the fact that being proprietary (i dont mean proprietery but i cant think of the word, i mean the opposite of an open platform like windows) isnt the best model for operating systems.
Not really. The issue was that they didn’t open their OS platform to other hardware manufacturers. There was never any Apple control over what programs you could run on your mac.
Windows OS is considered a monopoly, hence the problem with IE being packaged. iPhone doesn’t satisfy the test for a monopoly (not even if it reaches the singlemost widely used smartphone status) so these App Store decisions are not considered as use of monopoly powers.
Whatever happened to if I buy something, I own it? If I buy an iPhone (subsidized by the carrier or not), the manufacturer has no legal rights to tell me what I can and can’t put on my iPhone. Period. End of sentence.
Otherwise, give me an iPhone that I can “rent” for $5 a month + the service contract and I’ll go on my happy way.
Until Apple wakes up and realizes this, they are losing out on a lot of sales. Be nice if the FCC would wake up and actually do something about this too. Captialism? Shoot. More like Totalitarinism with Apple and their craptacular products.
Manufacturers have every legal right to put whatever restrictions they want on it as long as the ads or the representations for the product do not misrepresent it. Usually, it is competition that forces people to not put restrictions that are unfavorable to the buyer, not the law.
um, no they don’t. we do not live in a free enterprise system, anywhere in the world. get over it.
False dichotomy is a logical fallacy as well. It isn’t a choice between the extremes of unregulated free enterprise and manufacturers having no rights about what restrictions they can put on the product.
I will be happy to get over it if you can show one specific counter-example in the US (because we are talking about Apple’s decision in the US) that supports your view rather than making a general ideological statement.
Do you know of any case where a manufacturer put a restriction that wasn’t allowed by law (other than for monopoly, product safety or misrepresentation of the product including implied use) and how it may be parallel to this case?
A bit off topic, but I haven’t seen any updates recently from Michael on his life with Google Voice & Android.
Are there any updates?
>It’s time to remove any doubt as to who the bad guy is here: Apple.
apple and google have contradicting statements. Why does this article assume it is Apple that is not telling the truth, as opposed to Google? It seems like you’re simply making an assumption (like how TechCrunch assumed it was all AT&T’s doing, originally).
because apple’s statement doesn’t make any sense.
Google has no reason to lie, they would be more than happy to tell everyone “hey everybody the app it’s coming, Apple it’s still checking it out”.
If Apple really did said from the beginning they were still processing the apps, Google would have come out two months ago and calm everybody down and none of this would’ve happened.
True, Apple seems to be closing off their openness to third party apps, but I think the real question is: “Will Apple continue this trend of shutting other out?” It would be very unwise in my opinion. Do they already have a history of this… kinda…
They only seem to be shutting down apps that they deem is harmful to their business model. They have the right to do so as long as they have a market that will not reject that practice by not buying them.
The problem is that they are not upfront about this simple reason but want to put on a false front and lie about it.
agreed. The collateral damage from the lying episode will be loss of credibility and loads of (unwarranted) criticism that will tend to stick in the eyes of the public
Well, that’s just about the dumbest response I’ve ever seen, not to mention disingenuous. The litmus test is simple:
Is the Google Voice app present in the App Store, or not?
Until the application does appear in the App Store, we can all say with 100% certainty that it has been denied, or at a minimum, not approved. Oh, and let’s not forget that there were a couple of Google Voice apps already *in* the App Store that were pulled at the same time – how is that not a show of denial???
Apple is obviously lying here, and I just want to know why they believe we’re all too stupid to see through it?
The two positions are exactly that – Apple claims that it has not been approved and Google claims it has been denied. It all depends on what is in the actual communications and what is each company’s interpretation of it.
Unless Google has written communication from Apple that explicitly states that GV has been denied or will not be approved unconditionally (as opposed to not approved until… etc) then it will be “he said, she said” kind of situation.
FCC is in a pickle here because they are the ones being made fools of here. It will be interesting to see if FCC does anything about this discrepancy (or even whether they have the right to do so).
Let’s not be surprised to find out that all of Google’s VoIP traffic is recorded and the call with Phil emerges if this ever gets down to it.
All your conversations are belong to us. It all makes sense now.
I will no longer buy any product from Apple.
Apple just think I am so dumb that I cannot distinguish between Google Voice and their own dialer? that I am so gullible that they can so blatantly lie to anybody? Apple is fooling itself.
THE million dollar question: Would it be LEGAL for Google to offer their apps to i-Phone users for free? If so, they should just stab Apple right back!
Apple has the application distribution process pretty locked down. You can only distribute an application to 100 devices. So offering the application to users outside of the appstore isn’t feasible. Jailbroken phones are another matter.
This really doesn’t answer my question… The question is: Apple won’t sell google’s product, so can google offer it to the apple customers for free, or are there laws against that sort of cut-throat tactic?
these apps were free anyway. It’s possible to install apps from outside the app store by jailbreaking your phone, or by installing it ad hoc. both these options are too cumbersome for the average iphone user, and apple is actually persecuting jailbreakers by trying to make jailbreaking illegal.
Google Voice is already a free app, as are thousands of other apps that Apple “sells” in the AppStore. So its not an issue of charging for the application.
The issue is that Apple must bless all applications that are made available to iphone users from the AppStore. Posting an application on a website will not work, as Apple has engineered the process to require all application downloads to happen over the AppStore (see exception below). So Apple essentially has veto power over the application distribution process. In this case, Apple did not give Google its blessing, and so the Google Voice application is not available through the AppStore. This essentially blocks distribution of Google Voice to iPhone users.
It is possible to bypass the AppStore (and apple’s control) by creating an “ad-hoc” copy of your application, but there are significant limitations and its cumbersome for both the application publisher (Google) and the user.
Its hard to feel sorry for them when I can’t even open a GV account. Google, send me an invite already!
Unless Sean Kovacs has already made one, Google should crank out a GV app that would allow it to run on Windows Mobile devices. Perfect ad opportunity for Microsoft if they permit distribution of the app on supported phones – especially given the continual schellacking they’ve received in the “I’m a Mac” ads. “I’m a Windows Mobile device … and unlike the iPhone … I won’t block you from using Google Voice …” … loads of irony in this.
It would be funny to see this as a turning point in Apple’s foothold in the phone market, I can only imagine that Apple may reconsider their strategy next time after getting enough bad publicity for this.
Remember Apple is the company attempting to legally claim that jailbreaking your iphone so apps NOT from the Apple appstore is illegal.
Apple is trying to act like they own YOUR iPhone.
They seriously said that!? Does anybody have a link for that.. I mean, I bought the damn phone, so I OWN the hardware and software, who are they to tell me that I can’t install or hack the software on MY phone.. I’m not an “anti-Apple” person or anything, but this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
http://www.eff....reaking-illegal
good link, thank you very much.
I was actually considering getting an iPod touch so I could use the Google app without having to pay AT&T for phone plan.
That is why Apple turned them down.
Well, now that you put it that way, it makes much more sense. I guess it is kinda ridiculous to allow phone service to your customers when they don’t have to pay for it… that might drive the data plan prices through the roof
Not really. To use Google Voice with an iPod’s, you would need your own wifi connection, and so would not use AT&T’s network.
Well then what’s all the hub-bub about!?
I don’t think the iPod has anything to do with it.
You wouldn’t be able to do that as Google Voice isn’t VOIP.
me thinks google is bitching too much. maybe better to concentrate on android.
This is an excerpt from an above link’s article: “But the courts have long recognized that copying software while reverse engineering is a fair use when done for purposes of fostering interoperability with independently created software, a body of law that Apple conveniently fails to mention.” So this proves that jailbreaking your i-Phone is, in fact, NOT illegal!
I just wanna say thanks to everyone, this is the first real discussion I’ve had here at TechCrunch, and I have learned a small wealth of information. I actually traded sides on this argument today because of you guys. No, Apple shouldn’t have lied, but that doesn’t mean what they did was wrong for their company, I just don’t like how they go out of there way to scare you into using their propriety software. And I learned that jail breaking your phone is LEGAL.. oh apple, please grow up a little bit.
Ha ha. Where is your god now MG?
I think Google should just remove “Apple.com” from their directory listing. I mean, it’s Google’s website right? They can list whoever they want, right?
Just send all searches for itunes, ipod, iphone, apple, macbook, and imac to KittenWar.com
Hahaha – lol for the seemingly biased article look at the adjectives in front of all the verbs used to describe ‘lie’. Lol for the replies that mostly puts the blame on Apple for just really in the end, just trying to run a business.
No matter what anyone says, 1 basic fact must be applied and is well worth mentioning- business is for profit. If any challenges arrive, you nip it as soon as you see it. That’s exactly what Apple did to google. Also, i need a clause from the net neutrality act that means businesses are allowed to give up and die for becaus of nn.
Apple, just like all other businesses go through marketing tactics and techniques to keep alive and. Just like google does with its gv. People love the iphone not because it’s a cool phone. Heck thery paid a lot of money for it. It’s because it’s a cool toy. Should be called iTOY. So how do you sell a cool toy? By hooking up with what at the time is the largest network. With or without gv, people will not gravitate away from the iPhone. If something went horribly wrong with the marriage, iPhone still stands to gain by going to another provider (verizon or t-mo/sprint).
Accept this fact- apple knows its stuff. That’s why they are market leaders. That’s why they are all reading and scoffing at all the responses to this article, and this article.