At this point there shouldn’t be any doubt in anyone’s mind that Apple’s response to the FCC over its ban of Google Voice was rife with half-truths and some complete falsehoods. One claim that’s entered the limelight again is Apple’s statement that it hadn’t actually rejected Google Voice, but that it was still “pondering” it. Yesterday Google released its full, unedited response to the FCC inquiry, and the newly revealed content directly contradicts Apple’s statement multiple times, explicitly stating that the application was rejected.
Apple struck back with a statement that it didn’t agree with Google and that “Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google”. We’ve heard that Google actually has a screenshot displaying its rejection notice, but we may not even need that to show (once again) that Apple isn’t being honest.
In its letter to the FCC Apple says that “contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it”. It then goes on to describe its issues with Google Voice, which include fears of confusing users and replacing the iPhone’s core functionality (for a moment let’s ignore the fact that Apple’s description is totally disingenuous). Apple closes out this description with “The following applications also fall into this category”, and then lists the three third party Google Voice apps that were yanked from the App Store.
Presumably the applications in “this category” are all being pondered over too, and have not been rejected, right? But that’s simply not the case. Riverturn Inc, the developer behind the VoiceCentral application that was listed in Apple’s FCC response, has sent us a screenshot of its ‘rejection’ status that is quite clear.
Of course, this is all semantic hairsplitting — a neverending “pondering” status is exactly the same thing as a rejection — and Apple isn’t fooling anyone with it.
So they get t-shirts…right?
In other news, Apple rejects the http://www.f2bbs.com app because free speech is inappropriate.
No they get 3rd party matching socks
I’ve never done 2 socks at the same time!
I hate lying companies. I hate it, its bad for consumer, bad for competition and most importantly bad for the company itself. Screw the lawyers and what they tell you, in a nutshell, lying like that is the single most destructing way to damage your brand and turn empathy into hate.
Just ask Microsoft about it. Apple is on the path to becoming irrelevant. Consumers hate lyers. And coming from a public company it is just bad business. Lying is something that will linger in people’s minds for a long time.. and Apple has been going down that path for quite a while now…
damning.
Big deal? Their only misstake was denying that they denied Google. They should have issued a press release:
“Hell yeah we denied Google, and we hope they burn in hell!”
Yes it is a big deal. It’s called ‘lying to your customers’.
Apple do it rather a lot and it seems the tech bloggers are just waking up to that fact.
Cat was just being funny, I laughed.
I love Sam Jackson.
Well you can’t really be pondering the inclusion of something and go ahead and include (accept it as “Ready for sale” in the store) it now can you? So they had to reject it in order to ponder its inclusion.
Yeah, Apple is so god damned evil! Burn apple burn!
Apple inferno!
Sheesh, another saint of the internet, carrying the torch to expose THE MAN!!!
Don’t you have some dll’s to load, or a kernel to compile or something?
No I have beer to drink and a woman to make love to.
You?
Wow Mark! You’re cool! Will you be my best friend?
Joe, to be your best friend it would imply that you actually have friends at all.
You can see the obvious problem.
What was the lie again? they say they did not reject the app from Google. We have not seen proof that they have.
Nor have Apple denied it which is kind of damning because otherwise Google would be looking at a libel case.
Are you guys always this gullible or are you making a special effort on this one?
Does anyone still really believe Apple didn’t reject the apps? and that they are the only ones responsible for all this?
Where’s that edit button?
I am just waiting to see how FCC deals with this issue… And the next step from Apple that they are going to accept Voice with little tweaks here and there just to show that they are actually pondering on it…
lol i’m curious about whether they get the t-shirts too XD
Sooooooo, Apple is nothing but a bunch of lying, super-strict control freaks?! And to think I thought better of this company, this is a damn shame. BUSTED!!!…smFh
Is there a reason that makes this more interesting as to why Google Voice was rejected but things like Skype or Text Plus aren’t?
Is there a reason why this is still being reported on over and over? This is news?? When it first broke, it was obvious as to who made the call for rejection and why.
Because TC increasingly lacks good enterprise reporting. Because it’s easier to rehash the same topic. Because it’s lazy.
Because when new developments on a reoccurring topic arise, they shouldn’t report it. Right… gotcha.
Because dasein keeps hanging out here, even though the reporting is so ‘bad’.
Yeah, have you seen the dialer on Skype??? Also, the GoogleVoice app WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, was it not? And then it was YANKED from the App Store. What’s all this back-and-forth about whether it was approved or not or if it is still being studied – what am I missing here?
You can’t make it that general. That particular app could have been rejected by a number of other reasons besides the case Google Voice vs. Apple.
It’s is perfectly reasonable because the VoiceCentral app WAS previously available for purchase from the App Store. Along with another Google Voice dialer call “GV Mobile”.
Both were removed from the store after Apple rejected the Google’s own Google Voice app.
What I don’t understand is why Google Voice gets booted, while Skype and other similar apps have not. There simply is no way Apple comes out looking good in this situation. Apple’s death-grip on the iPhone is keeping some potentially game-changing software from making it to the iPhone. Google Voice is obviously one, but what about Flash?
Agreed, I too think Flash should be allowed on the iPhone.
+1
I don’t understand this at all. Who cares. They told Google, change your app or it can’t be in the store. Whether that is ‘rejection’ or ‘rethink’ or ‘pondering’ it doesn’t really matter. There is no legal definition of rejection.
+1 – see above!
“Who cares”?? Apparently only a few poor souls who write for this blog.
As a developer. I care. As a consumer, everyone who owns an iPhone should care.
im guessing when they tell you its been rejected, thats probably a decent definition.
It means they lied in a government investigation. It’s not like these are public statements – this means that they intentionally lied to the government. If one of the biggest tech companies in the world is doing that, it’s worth caring about.
And a legal definition of “rejected” is irrelevant; Apple sets its own definitions. In Apple’s own system there are approved apps, rejected apps, and apps still pending approval. Were Apple really considering the app, it would be pending. It would not be flat-out rejected, as Google claims.
‘They told Google?’ Ummm…Wasn’t it an independent App dev. named Sean Kovacs???
What about all the VOIP apps that also have dialers, contacts, recent calls? They are alive and well in the store. And what about all the apps that have visual voicemail interfaces like the Comcast app, Voicie, RingCentral, mBox, ….
There is no leg to stand on that this is because of a duplication of user experience issue.
Who cares. Let Google, get their own phone, a carrier contract, and their own app store and they can do what they like.
No, moron. Let Apple get their own country, with their own spectrum and their own FCC and then they can do whatever they want. In that country.
If they want to do business in the US (*our* country) – they have to obey our rules and our FCC. If they don’t want to – they can go screw themselves. Same goes for all you fanbois.
Well said! I’m so sick of people defending and coming up with every excuse in the book for Apple’s actions!
What’s in it for these people?!? If you haven’t noticed by then, Apple is a corporation whose only motivation is to make money, and satisfy the share holders! Steve Jobs and Apple could not care less about you, or me.
They put out great products, but they’re not beyond reproach. They do screw up, and when they do, it should be pointed out. Defending their every action is completely counter productive because in the end, the loser is the customer!
That’s the problem apple products aren’t incredibly technologically advanced. There marketing is just the best, and that was more luck than anything else. The ipod was a marketing success that started it all, but not the first mp3 player, and just look at how they screwed you with that.(I-tunes)
They only care about keeping their bedfellows happy, so Merry Christmas ATT: Google Voice is being indefinitely pondered. Everybody still needs to buy voice plans instead of making free mobile calls every where just using YOUR data plan.
+1 for the parent.
I am sick of Apple fanboys telling me that it is okay for Apple to screw us in any which way it wants because their phone is the market leader.
This is the same argument that Microsoft fanboys once made about Windows.
Microsoft fanboys? WMD’s? Where?
+1
You have an iPhone? Who’s it made by?
Totally agree. And, Tarun, it’s also the same argument about macs.
These fanboys really get blind to anything. What the hell do they think these companiess are up to?
Every company should follow the rules, no matter how good their products or services are. For instance, I’ve got nothing to say against google yet, but once it screw something up, i’ll be sure to fight against it.
Ahh, so the -FCC- dictates what Apple releases (or doesn’t). Who’s the moron?
What rules did they break exactly? FCC has no rules on what apps can or cannot be allowed on a phone. If they required open phones then 99% of the phones on the market would be illegal. There is no policy because there simply is no precedent for a device with an app market – because no one has cared about this space before because all the devices and apps sucked before iPhone.
Apple has no legal requirement to carry Google Voice. The issue for the FCC was if the carrier was involved with controlling apps and in doing so blocking competition between ATT and another potential service provider, Google. Thus the questions of ATT’s role. Apple as the device maker is not subject to those rules. As long as ATT was not involved then there really is not an issue for the FCC. If the FCC wants to pursue this they can but it’s only on a fact finding basis. Even if ATT did block the app it is not clear that there would be a remedy that the FCC could enforce. Would ATT be forced to allow a device on it’s network with an app by T-Mobile? If they were it would be totally unprecedented.
Also, this article is bunk. Apple’s statement referred to the question of whether they rejected Google’s app and none other.
This is not really an issue for anyone besides the big tech weenies and bloggers. The is not a publicly available service anyway, so there really is no issue of a delay in any case.
Apple controls so much of the smartphone market that it would be unfair and anticompetitive to let it block entry into the applications market. Apple would use that power to harm businesses that compete with it in other markets, like Google and Microsoft.
Apple would also reject applications that serve the same purposes as existent Apple products. Apple fears that if iPhone users become too fond of Google alternatives, Google will get tons of advertising revenues, while Apple loses customer loyalty and the opportunity to popularize Apple products.
Imagine if Microsoft could reject Windows applications because they threatened to upset sales or use of Windows, Office, Internet Explorer or even the Xbox. No more Open Office or Wordperfect. No more Firefox. Less games. Just because you created the platform, does not mean you have the right to control the applications.
The truth is, neither Apple nor Microsoft created a market. There have always been alternatives to both the iPhone and Windows. If one platform had not won, another would have. The applications market would exist either way. In fairness, the platform creator should get profits from selling the platform. But manipulating the applications market to bolster the platform is double dipping. It forces competitors to enter two markets at once: the platform and the application markets. This tends to kill off small competitors that lack the resources to develop, market and support a whole platform. It crushes innovation.
Apple’s behavior is anticompetitive, and for that reason illegal under antitrust laws.
Thanks for breaking it down so thoroughly. I hope that the fanboys stop their rooting for anticompetitive behavior now.
Actually, Mark, as far as I understand anti-trust law, anti-competitive behavior is not illegal and it would be very hard to suggest that anti-trust laws apply here. In order for anti-trust laws to apply you would have to show to a court that Apple has a monopoly or significant market power that it could achieve a monopoly. Just saying that “Apple controls so much of the smartphone market” is not enough to have anti-trust laws apply. In fact Apple only has a small share of the smart-phone market behind Nokia and Blackberry in units. Anti-trust law is specific to conditions where you have a sole supplier controlling the market for a given good without substitutions. Apple has strong competition in the smartphone market: BB, Window Mobile, Android, WebOS, Symbian. Because consumers have a choice between iPhone and the alternatives, Apple is not a monopoly and antitrust rules do not apply.
It is true that Apple has nearly total control of the app business for iPhone. This is not traditionally what is considered a monopoly and is not illegal. A given firm may have special control of a marketplace and that control may in cases limit competition. This is very common. A retailer is not obliged to carry competitive products. A grocery store for example may promote its own private label goods over a competitive brand it stocks. Does this reduce competition? Yes, it does. but it is not illegal unless you can show that that grocery store has so much market power in a given region that it is effectively a monopoly. As long as consumers have another choice this sort of behavior is not illegal.
There are of course other cases where the makers of a device have sought and gained exclusive control over the add-on market for that device. For example many video game platforms work this way, where the game console maker has maker control over the allowed games on the platform. This restraint on who may make games for a device is not ideal in terms of competition but it is allowable as long as console consumers have another choice in the market, which so far they have had in the video game market. Thus, no application of anti-trust would be reasonable.
Clearly people who object to how Apple runs the Appstore have every right to complain. Personally I would rather they did so on a more open basis and only excluded apps with malicious code like viruses and malware. But what Apple is doing is not illegal. We also don’t know all of the negotiations behind the scenes between Apple and Google. Maybe this app’s approval is a bargaining chip for something else. Either way, that sort of behavior is not uncommon or illegal as I see it. Its just rarely so public as this.
roz, the majority of any antitrust argument is showing that a practice is anticompetitive. What remains is fitting it under a provision of the Sherman or Clayton Act. Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibiting monopolization is most relevant here. Apple controls a sizable portion of the U.S. smartphone market—23.3%. But the real concern is that, due to the iPhone’s notable market share and huge popular appeal, Apple controls the U.S. smarphone applications market. 87% of consumers use iPhone applications.*** http://www.read...ay_way_ahea.php. Because 87% of U.S. smartphone application consumers buy their applications through the iPhone, excluded application makers have no good alternative venues for their products. Thus, Apple can exclude competing applications to bolster the prices and profitability of its own applications and other products. This is an unusual sort of market power, but market power it is, and it triggers Section 2.
Any anticompetitive behavior by a monopolist is illegal. This includes blocking market entry. For instance, the monopolist Alcoa built factories before demand called for them, deterring entry by potential competitors. This violated Section 2. Apple’s offense is far more egregious, because Apple is directly excluding a competitor, rather than merely creating excess supply to deter market entry.
Some might argue that Apple created the iPhone application market, and it hardly makes sense to punish them for controlling it. If not for Apple, they argue, no one would be competing in the application market at all. Moreover, if Apple could not profit from the iPhone application market, Apple would have no incentive to create and maintain it. So, they conclude, we should allow Apple to block entry into the iPhone application market, because Apple would otherwise not maintain that market. They argue that, in the end, Apple’s behavior is pro-competitive.
This is the spirit of a lot of the comments here, and I primarily meant to contradict that. As I said: “The truth is, neither Apple nor Microsoft created a market. There have always been alternatives to both the iPhone and Windows. If one platform had not won, another would have. The applications market would exist either way. In fairness, the platform creator should get profits from selling the platform. But manipulating the applications market to bolster the platform is double dipping. It forces competitors to enter two markets at once: the platform and the application markets. This tends to kill off small competitors that lack the resources to develop, market and support a whole platform. It crushes innovation.”
So, to elaborate on my initial conclusion: Because Apple has market power in the U.S. smartphone applications market, and its behavior is anticompetitive, it has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
***One difference between the smartphone application market and the video game market, which you mentioned, is that no video game console in recent history has been the only console on which 87% of consumers play games. Moreover, there is no evidence that video game console makers have discriminated against potential competitors in selecting which games to allow for their systems. Rather, they usually just exclude adult-oriented and low quality material. This sort of restriction arguably improves market function. It is a whole different story from selectively excluding competitors.
Wait, do you know the numbers on Apple’s share of the smartphone market? Well here are the numbers.
iPhone — 8%
Windows Mobile – 12%
Symbian — 52%
Rim — 17%
Android — 1%
Palm — 2%
Other 9 %
Hardly a controlling share now, is it?
Dave, perhaps Google has gotten their own parallel system to Apple’s closed system. After all, if you really really want a Google Voice app, you can get an Android phone…or a Blackberry phone. For those people for whom direct dialing via Google Voice is important, Apple is NOT an option. Whether that audience is significant enough to dampen fanboy enthusiasm remains to be seen.
“Who cares. Let Google, get their own phone, a carrier contract, and their own app store and they can do what they like.”
You mean something like the G-1 on T-Mobile and the Android Market? What’s your point exactly?
And still when reading this do I care? And the answer is no. Why? Because the majority of iPhone users don’t have a Google Voice account. Infact it is probably just the digirati who have them, an elite few. In the UK we don’t get Google voice at all.
So it’s a none issue for the rest of us. So stop whining and find a real story.
Apple is Evil!
The big deal is this may lead to a totally open structure for mobile phones. Much like the entire PC broadband structure is setup right now. You never see HP/Dell – Time Warner/Comcast telling us what applications we can install on our PC’s. Google is trying to bring this openness to the mobile phone networks. ATT, Verizon, and Apple are scared shitless because they realize that their hardware is slowly simply becoming an open mini-PC and the broadband networks are slowly becoming simple conduits where we push around data. Basically, the mobile networks are loosing their control of micro transactions such as text, images, data, etc. And Apple is slowly loosing its ability to force users what apps it want them to use on their devices. Google should be commended for what it is doing here … and also with their Android OS. It is making an open mobile structure a reality … though slowly and with a lot of resistance.
~!agree!~
and also this keeps getting reported on because more and more things are coming to light that show that apple is blatantly lying to the FCC, which many people do find interesting and/or newsworthy
+1, exactly
The more I read about this issue the more I feel bad that I bought this iPhone.
Ok, I’ll buy it off you for cheap
Apple caught being dishonest once again… and the general response from the peanut gallery is, “Who cares?” With attitudes like that, it’s no wonder our government is in such sorry state.
David, I don’t think it’s all readers who are like that.
Just the idiot Apple fanbois. Who apparently want us to cover our eyes and ears when their cult violates laws. Idiots.
If you don’t want to buy an iPhone, then don’t. No one is forcing you to.
+1. ‘nough said.
Neal Stephenson called out Apple for what they were waaaaaaay back when he wrote “In The Beginning There Was The Command Line” (google it to read it online). Apple is like a hippie commune, where they sat they’re all about peace and free love, but really the leader is a super control freak. Prescient.
the truth is in this ^ direction.
But Apple is so cool! Steve Jobs and Woz still hang out in the garage playing frisbee and making cool gadgets! What’s not to love?
Screw Apple and their overpriced crap…
1. Yellow tint in new 3GS and 3 different LCD type (2 make only yellow tinted lcd)
2. Google voice drama
3. new iPod Touch (no cam, no mic) failed
You are forgetting the C64 emulator whacking. Why this isn’t a hotter topic of discussion I will never know.
Steve! Let me play Loderunner, PLEASE!!!!
09/07/2009 – C64 emulator approved for iPhone http://www.tuaw...ved-for-iphone/
09/08/2009 – C64 emulator un-approved again
http://www.tuaw...approved-again/
This is rubbish writing.
You don’t know the facts of the case. You may or may not be right.
It’s a he-said, she-said thing going on here. TC has no proof one way or the other, but TC has made a conclusion and is nearly reporting it as fact.
You should start an editorial opinion section, because that’s all this piece of writing is.
“More Evidence That Apple Really Did Reject Google Voice”
Really? Because Google has a different take? This is evidence?
Hmm. Sounds like you misread.
The evidence is that Apple listed other apps that also fall under this “not rejected but under consideration” category. However, one of them has come out saying that their app was, in fact, rejected.
No matter what way you slice it, this definitely is pretty strong evidence that Apple is lying. And therefore a pretty good reason not to trust the remainder of their FCC statement.
Anywho. TC is a blog. Bloggers can write opinions anywhere in their blog that they want to. Were this a newspaper, of course the tone used here would never make it to a print copy. But it’s a blog. Blogs are, by default, informal on some level. Even the prominent ones.
Matchu, I’m not quite that certain that the distinction between blogs and newspapers is as hard and fast as you state. While a newspaper might not use the word “evidence,” I could easily see a newspaper running most of this article as is, as long as it is caveated (the known facts about the rejection of VoiceCentral, an application that Apple included in the same category as Google Voice, seem to suggest that Google Voice may also have been rejected).
Apple’s response is truly baffling
They think they’re above the law. Not just “baffling”, but also “very arrogant”.
This is a poker game we are watching and I don’t find it baffling at all that Apple is trying to not let Google in to take over core communications aspects of mobile devices. This is a huge long-term business decision.
” which include fears of confusing users”…am I the only who reads this in the following fashion…
“iphone users are to stupid to think on their own/know what they are doing”.
Just me, really?
Adrian, to put a positive spin on the philosophy, Apple would claim that it strives to provide one ideal user experience. That’s why the original Macs, unlike PCs, automatically ejected floppy discs – not because Mac users were too stupid to find the floppy eject button, but because Apple truly believes in “one UI to rule them all.” This desire to provide a single user experience is (partially)) what motivates Apple to control its UI and to banish violators such as Google Voice who do not conform 100% to the Apple UI. And if you have a vision of a runner sprinting toward a screen to smash the image of Big Brother, I do also…and of course Apple isn’t the runner in this scenario.
Skirting the rules and then providing half-truth answers recently emerged with Clinton, became fashionable in the Bush admin (see Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove, etc.) and is now accepted practice by corporate chieftains (see almost every participant in the mortgage meltdown). It’s a fundamentally dishonest practice that requires the rule enforcers to engage in costly cat and mouse games that often go nowhere. What ever happened to personal/corporate/government responsibility? I’m disgusted.
The lack of corporate responsibility didn’t just emerge with Clinton. Oliver North, Bert Lance, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson…the twisting of the truth as practiced by Apple has been going on for millennia.
You know what? I would love to be able to use Google Voice on my iPhone, but whatever, it’s their phone, they can do whatever they feel like with it. It’s for us then, to decide if we want to stick with such a crappy carrier (AT&T) and a -more and more, every day-, annoying, untrustworthy company (Apple).
Javier, is it Apple’s/AT&T’s phone, or is it your phone?
It’s your phone dude not theirs. even if the iPhone OS is licensed you should be able to install whatever you want in it.
Whatever you want? Even if it violates your license agreement? Even if it’s illegal? Voids your warranty? (I guess that’s your prerogative)….
Does everyone know that you can still use Google Voice on an iPhone??? Yes, a legit, approved, GoogleVoice APP would be great, but I use Google Voice all the time on my iPhone …and it is NOT jailbroken! You just login to the GoogleVoice website via Safari….and once AT&T’s ‘A-List’ becomes available on 09/20/2009 (to those with a $59.99 USD or greater voice plan), I’ll add my GoogleVoice number as one of the 5 ‘favs’ on my ‘A-List’ and proceed to get all my incoming calls for ‘free/unlimited’ so to speak, as well as initiating GoogleVoice outbound calls from my iPhone using GoogleVoice website via Safari – now outbound calls will also be ‘free/unlimited’ in a sense. Also, GoogleVoice recently added ‘SMS-to-email forwarding’ feature too…save on those texting fees.
+1 Javier. The iPhone is one consumer choice. If you believe that you should be able to install any app that anyone develops, then you have an alternate choice: Android.
If Apple were doing something to thwart the emergence of other platforms (ala the browser wars), then I’d see where this was news. But an app is not a platform, and I see no reason why Apple should be allowed to let Google steal their lunch inside their own cafeteria. App approval isn’t in the Bill of Rights for crissakes.
The fact that Apple did approve line2 (Toktumi), which has most of the same functionality as Google Voice suggests that this has more to do with an Apple vs Google pissing match than anything else.
To echo what someone else said above, even if Apple hasn’t been entirely truthful, the real call is that Apple isn’t the one worried about a competing “Phone” app – ATT is. And they are more likely the ones that made the call to put the kabosh on this app – likely something that occurred after the Skype app was more successful than anticipated. To someone else’s point that the iPhone is just a mobile computer – it’s NOT. It’s a cell phone that is connected to ATT’s network and until you can activate it on any network, it won’t matter whether or not you have Google voice or whatever. It’s doesn’t equate to being able to download any app onto a computer, as the computer doesn’t need a 2-year contract to allow you to use the internet and make calls.
This type of behavior from a publically traded company is making think twice about purchasing from them again.
Another post about the same that? Is TC requiring that everyone in the office write about this?
There is no law that says anyone has the right to publish an App through Apple’s store. Assuming that such a right exists is the equivalent of assuming Microsoft and Yahoo! should have the right to install their search engines on Google’s servers. Ridiculous.
+1 see my comment a few posts up.
As far as I know, Apple does not reject apps with a phone call. They send out snail mail letters, probably combined with email.
Unless Google can provide an official rejection letter/email, I consider it a miscommunication in the phone call.
Eventually, Apple is going to put itself out of business.
I am waiting for Google to release its own operating system. That will put Apple OS out of business and take a huge chunk out of Microsoft.
Fucking delusional.
seriously. for all the accusations of fanboism levied at apple users, the blind allegiance to google prevalent in this community is a hell of a lot scarier. at least apple isn’t trying to catalogue all of your personal data.
Yeah, but isn’t it Apple’s right to reject whomever they want?
wow, i thought techcrunch had no journalistic credibility at all.
apparently lots of people disagree.
enjoy your “news” here, it is certainly entertaining.
cheers
Most of the world would wonder what the big fuss is. I imagine those that care about this already have jailbroken iPhones. A small, vocal group with a small, curious, and unbelieving audience.
and I just want everyone who reads this to know that jailbreaking your i-phone for purposes of intercompatability with other apps is considered NOT illegal by the court system.
Apple Says iPhone Jailbreaking is Illegal
http://www.copy...pple-inc-31.pdf
http://www.eff....reaking-illegal
What a cop out statement. There are tons of 2ndary alarm clock and caculator applications on there, but u don’t see a bunch of mass idiot iPhone users not understanding the difference between built in alarm clock or calculator vs installing a different alarm clock or calc app!
Uh, not to defend Apple, but that’s not the official Google Voice app either. They said they didn’t reject *Google’s* app. That’s different than other applications.
You do realise you totally missed the point, right?
Apple claimed that other non-Google apps with similar functionality – like VoiceCentral – were also still pending a decision. The VoiceCentral team sent evidence to show that no, the app is listed as ‘rejected’ and not ‘pending’.
Noone is claiming VoiceCentral is Google’s Voice app for the iPhone.
Must be a slow news day for this “inventive” article about old topics to appear. You know, Kincaid, if you don’t have something real to add, you could sped the time researching real topics and then post something worthwhile…
TC is really missing the story here. The real story is that Google and Apple are jousting for control of the core communication aspects of mobile devices. Each has a lot at stake and Apple would be incredibly stupid to just let Google ‘hijack’ the system. Apple is wise to let the FCC get involved and prolong Google’s attack as long as possible. This is capitalism at its finest and I think the drama is exciting to watch!
I love the world. Whoever has control (is #1) defends it’s perch and sounds completely justified about their reasons and indignant towards any attacks. They fall off their perch and then all of #2’s attacks become their attacks and everything they once defended becomes a “pack of lies by the elite meant to hold them down unfairly”. The really talented spin companies can be both top dog and underdog at the same time without blinking an eye or cracking a smile. “I rabidly despise your company’s monopoly. Our monopoly? We don’t have one. We’re just defending the rights of our customers to have a secure and homogeneous experience”.
Who needs a perpetual motion machine when you can just sit back and watch the eternal “King of the Hill” game corporations play. God does not play dice with the Universe but he does render it in Dilbert shaded cartoons.
What a melee!!!! Just take the ownership Apple and move on…
Apple Re: Google Voice:
“We are unable to accept it at this time. We wish it the best in its future endeavors.”
Nice to see all the fanbois out in fullforce defending the apple. I saw this coming years ago.
And to think that people say microsoft is evil for letting any applications on any of their OSes….and allowing any of their OSes to be installed on any hardware that will run them?
I’ve had several friends hop the train to appleton, only to get off when their original crapple product crapped out and they saw how trapped they were by proprietary products.
I’m glad to see the apple fad is coming to a close.
“we continue to discuss it with Google”
Why have continuing discussions if it’s been “rejected”?
It’s difficult to reconcile the quality of this blog with the quality of the comments on it.
Where do you see quality? I see conjecture and hit mongering.
Here’s the problem. Apple said “No” to Goggle and nobody puts baby in a corner or says “No” to Goggle. (Probably because Apple has $35 billion in the bank and a plethora of strong products + the retail success). If you can control search you can control just about everything else on the net. If some other company develops a browser that’s better than Google, very likely, Goggle dies a swift death and god forbid that somebody writes a mere application that is placed on the IPhone that produces that result. Goggle wants to be everything to everybody and that’s fine for Goggle. If they want to create a phone that can be subsidized via
advertisements that’s great too…great for Google. Google’s aim is to kill the IPhone or at least limit it’s growth and influence by any means necessary and they have to start reaching into Apple’s pockets at some point. If they can get the government to help them so much the better.
The question I have is why is the govt. involved in this seemingly insignificant matter in the first place? The FCC is about as effective that other so far behind the curve agency the SEC. Both are full of third-rate lawyers who hope to cash in on their experience in Washington by becoming a corporate counsel for some industry leader and
reap the benefits via options. So leave both of them alone. Let the market decide and the FCC can go back to levying fines on pop stars for exposing themselves during halftime shows.
No. Google doesn’t want to kill the iphone. Google was just wants users…a user on iphone is the same as a user on android to them.
Google gets $0 for each sale of a droid…they get what they want the most…users. That’s why they make their apps for as many platforms as possible.
Anyway you look at it here, let me tell you the end of the story:
Google Voice gets tons of free press. Tons of people go and check it out and see what the buzz is about. Google Wins. Apple looks like the playground bully who is hogging the monkey-bars all to themselves. The end.
and everyone was sooo quick to point the finger at AT&T.
John Salcido – September 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm CDT
and everyone was sooo quick to point the finger at AT&T.
Part of the appeal of google voice is “free longdistance calls” you still think AT&T isn’t part of the blame?
Apple voice application (Simply their phone APP) should work with any voice network and it doesn’t since it is linked to an exclusive contract with that carrier in the US. In some european countries the judicial system has imposed that iPhones could be sold by any carrier in that country. I am not sure visual voicemail is enabled by all carriers but one per country (in some european countries such as France for example until recently SFR does not offer Visual Voice mail even though they offer the iPhone legally).
That being said, the main advantage of using Google Voice with any carrier would be to enable visual voicemail with ANY carrier whether or not that feature has been enabled by that carrier.
One can conclude that Apple protects some of their carrier partners as opposed to some others by selectively enabling major features on the voice side.
Finally I believe Apple sells hardware as its main source of profit so far, so I don’t see why Apple would forbid Google Voice without suffering from it, which raises some other logic issues that I don’t see addressed here.
Finally I believe Apple sells hardware as its main source of profit so far, so I don’t see why Apple would forbid Google Voice without suffering from it, which raises some other logic issues that I don’t see addressed here.
–
because ATT would be pissed off if people like me, who are waiting to immediately port their number over to GV (once they open that up to others other than arrington) to save $20 on unlimited texting, actually do that and god forbid lose their cashcow.
god att are such scum. and sadly, this fanboy is starting to think Apple’s heading down that path.
GO GOOGLE!
Maybe Apple should allow users to select any Voice App on the iPhone for receiving calls through the voice network, same with SMS and MMS. It would allow for better consumer satisfaction since we would then benefit from the positive effect of competition which we do benefit from on the iPhone for all features but Voice and SMS/MMS.
The first carrier allowing this to happen will be the carrier I will choose and I am sure many will do the same.
Verizon sells Blackberry to its world travelers customers with access to both their CDMA network and GSM network outside the US. Even though accessing the GSM network may be limited to roaming through Vodafone when outside the US.
If Verizon was offering an iPhone with similar capabilities along with at least one Voice App allowing to switch from their network to any others they may be able to sell more iPhones than ATT which ultimately would benefit them and Apple.
Operators will soon compete exclusively based on the value of their data network which capacity will need to be increased anyway before any phone such as the iPhone can work reliably (See ATT recent network issues).
It’s really obvious that Apple tried to put some “corporate spin” on this and failed. The only way they are going to save face on this is to come out and say “we were wrong” and to relax their rules on submitting to the app store and release the phone to all carriers. Even if they do this people will still remember the lies.
The thing I am really wondering though is how much neglect Apple’s other products are seeing due to this huge focus on the iPhone?
Is Apple interested in making great products or just making money?
Since you’re taking the position that Apple is lying, then you should be able to produce a copy of the rejection. Where is it? And why hasn’t Google produced it?
If Google is telling the truth, they should have attached it to the FCC filing or at least referred to it. Where is it?