Google Claims That Apple Did Reject Google Voice iPhone Application

[trekkie604]

does it matter?

Google's app still isn't in the app store.

Why should I care if it was rejected or not?

Other GV apps were originally approved then were pulled.

[xIGmanIx]

You make a good point. Except that you don't see me whining ad infinitum about something that is part-and-parcel of the Apple way of doing things to begin with, and which has been this way for years now.

There's a price to pay for the "Apple experience." Always has been. Total openness and transparency is not one of the ideals (and never was) that are high on Apple's list or priorities. It's a closed system. But one that manages to be far, far more attractive and usable than all the others out there.

Apple is no more closed/restricitve today than it was five years ago. In fact, it has opened up in some ways. There are just more products in the Apple lineup and more fingers in the Apple pie that need to be regulated, placated, controlled, catered to, reigned in, etc.

Apparently, your not able to request feature set from apple and its either take what they give you and leave? I think that is what people are taking issue with, regardless if that is the mentality seemingly promoted at apple.

At the current rate, Apple could immediately cease OS development for a decade and still be ahead of Microsoft in the operating systems "race."

I have said it before and i will say it again. How serious can you take some one who makes a statement like this? Apparently the iPhone and Snow Leopard were flawless from the start and we just realized those were features we didn't need since apple did include them, then they did over a year later and then marketed them as a feature.

[occamsrazor]

I am actually happy that the FCC is looking into things here. I may not use Google voice as a service, but I am not a fan of how the telecommunications industry wants to control the web browser and the internet. Is thats whats going on here? We don't yet know.

That actually cuts to the root problem of all of this... the telcos, and the way the whole cellphone business is carried out in the US (and some other parts of the world). And the way when the iphone first came out Apple chose to continue with the locked-to-a-carrier model, instead of just selling it unlocked and carrier-free. And then they forced the same model on the rest of the world, or at least everywhere else that didn't have reasonably meaty consumer protection and anti-competition laws preventing the sale of locked phones.
Locking phones to carriers for the duration of contacts is one of the most uncompetitive things going on, and the sooner the whole carrier-locked-phones model is thrown into the trash, the better. Yes, you'll pay more for the device up front, but you'll save in the long run and have the freedom that comes of being able to use your device freely, changing providers at will.
Because of the decision not to sell the iPhone unlocked from the start, the carriers now seems to have great influence over everything, and that is why we've ended up here arguing about what we can or cannot do with our own phones.
The thing is many people in the US seem to see government regulation as an infringement on competition, whereas in reality hard consumer protection laws, anti-monopoly legislation, etc such as those preventing the sale of locked phones and the enforcement of real competition in the ISP sector, in reality leads to way more competition.
You only have to take a look at the mess that is the US ISP & Telco sector to see what happens when a handful of large companies are allowed to get into a virtual-monopoly position, with consumers often having little real competition, and how it ends up completely at odds with the interests of the users and indeed the public at large.
I guess I just find it a bit disappointing that apparently there are lots of people ready to vehemently defend the same model that ends up screwing them....

[organerito]

Switch to WinMo or Android or BB. They're just as good as the iPho . . . oh wait.

There's always a price to pay. Taken for all in all, in light of what you get with the iPhone + Apple ecosystem, it's a small price to pay.

And even after the GV "incident", there are no shortage of developers for the iPhone, and certainly no shortage of carriers falling all over each other to get it.

No need to inflate the issue beyond what it actually is.

It is not about just GV. It is about the message that Apple sends the developers and consumers. That's why many of us are not very happy. We like the iphone and buy many apps, but that doesn't mean that I have to swallow everything Apples does without at least complaining. As I said, I like it, but as a paying costumer, I would like things to be better.

[pdjudd]

Other GV apps were originally approved then were pulled.

I wonder if the reason those were accepted was because they did something different and Apple decided to pull them all until this matter could be settled formally? I think Apple realized that this was more problematic than they realized earlier.

Of course we can't really know since anything not disclosed to the FCC is under NDA

[eastcoastsurfer]

Google Voice is already available on Android and Blackberry. It already works on At&t through the website. I pretty sure T-Mobile has the free unlimited to a group of people thing going...and its up and running on the G-1 and other android phones (app based) and web based for other mobiles. If this was truly a huge problem then they could just block the website like they did with 4chan, and we all know how that went.


This is something that those phone companies will have to deal with...and I am betting that the majority of iPhone users won't even use or download GV (at least until you can port over your mobile number).

While that is true who is more likely to use applications? iPhone users have shown that they are very savvy at going out and finding the good apps. Apple pushes the app store as THE thing. I bet if GV gets on the app store it would see more use than any of the other phones it is already on.

Porting your number over is something google is working on.

[pdjudd]

Because of the decision not to sell the iPhone unlocked from the start, the carriers now seems to have great influence over everything, and that is why we've ended up here arguing about what we can or cannot do with our own phones.
That's one of my biggest suspicions in this case is that part of the decision making process of any app approval is that Apple worries about the hand of AT&T visible or not. I an very suspicious of the telecos because of their huge greed

The thing is many people in the US seem to see government regulation as an infringement on competition, whereas in reality hard consumer protection laws, anti-monopoly legislation, etc such as those preventing the sale of locked phones and the enforcement of real competition in the ISP sector, in reality leads to way more competition.
I agree. It's sad that people do not see the forest for the trees (or however the phrase goes). I still have a hard time accepting that the telecos want companies to pay a toll to access the pipes that they have an essentially monopoly over and they have the gall to say that Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. However thats a side issue that isn;t relivant to the matter at hand.

You only have to take a look at the mess that is the US ISP & Telco sector to see what happens when a handful of large companies are allowed to get into a virtual-monopoly position, with consumers often having little real competition, and how it ends up completely at odds with the interests of the users and indeed the public at large.

Ding Ding!

It is not about just GV. It is about the message that Apple sends the developers and consumers. That's why many of us are not very happy. We like the iphone and buy many apps, but that doesn't mean that I have to swallow everything Apples does without at least complaining. As I said, I like it, but as a paying costumer, I would like things to be better.

We should be reminded that from the very get go Apple said that this was going to be a restricted platfrom and that not everyone can play. Developers still applied none the less.

[KidStallyn]

If you haven't "rejected" it Apple, then why isn't in the App Store?? Guess what, I'm staying jailbroken, and on 3.0 until it gets approved. I have a phone that works, and a Google Voice app that allows me to send and receive unlimited txt messages for FREE, to an actual phone number. Would I like to have Push notification when a txt comes in....sure.....But I've been living without it for now and it's working GREAT!

Screw you ATT and Apple!

[CQd44]

I'm still happily enjoying the google voice application on my g1

Also, iphone users: can't you use the web interface at google.com/voice?

It must be irritating to have to go through such unnecessary steps =\

[Bonte]

i don't get it, why can't Apple reject applications for whatever reason?

Most phones don't have 3P applications, let alone a Google voice app. Just ban the Carrier subsidies and the problem goes away.

[pdjudd]

Screw you ATT and Apple!
If you wanted to screw Apple and AT&T, then why did you buy their products? You do realize that you are giving them money right?


Also, iphone users: can't you use the web interface at google.com/voice?

I don’t think that the web version provides the whole thing that the native app does. I can’t say for sure though since I have not seen the App. I am simply repeating what I have heard.

[slu]

Let me just make sure I understand:

If I don't like Apple's iPhone app approval process for the iPhone, I should not let my voice be heard, I should just sell my phone, even though there are other things I like about it, and hope Apple changes their ways without any feedback at all.

Just like if I don't like the lack of matte screens on the Macbook Pro, I should sell my Macbook and not say anything about it.

Just like if I don't like the lack of a Firewire port on any 13.3 inch laptop, I should just buy a different laptop and not say anything about it.

Am I getting this all correct?:rolleyes:

Some of the people in this thread make me sick. Of course Apple has every right to do whatever they want to do within the law. But this does not mean that I, or anyone else, does not have the right to state our opinions about their choices. By all means, vote with your wallet. I will be checking out other phones when my contract is up for this very reason, but that does not mean I am not allowed to give feedback to Apple or to voice my opinion on this forum. If you are tired of hearing it, turn off your computer or go to a different thread.

This free country allows Apple to do what they want, this free country allows me to complain about what I want, and this free country allows you to defend Apple. My main problem with the "apologists" is not that they are defending Apple. It is the irony of the them defending Apple by saying this is a free country, but then complaining about others with the opposite opinions.

[KnightWRX]

The most frustrating part of this is that this is not in fact a limitation of the platform, it's a limitation of the vendor. This is an artificial barrier put up by Apple. The iPhone is perfectly capable of running the Google Voice app.

Duplication of features ? If the feature was already on the phone, then people wouldn't be complaining so hard now would they...

Have their cakes and eat it too ? This is more like Apple giving you a cake and then telling you you can't eat the frosting because it would ruining the experience.

[bobertoq]

Apple needs to stop this babysitting or allow apps from other stores on the iPhone. Seriously.

[Stridder44]

Apple needs to stop this babysitting or allow apps from other stores on the iPhone. Seriously.


Could not agree more. This is getting out of hand.

[occamsrazor]

Have their cakes and eat it too ? This is more like Apple giving you a cake and then telling you you can't eat the frosting because it would ruining the experience.

(With some fear of going down the crazy analogy path....) No, it's more like buying a cake from Apple, but then when you go home and want to add extra frosting yourself you're prevented from doing so because the proposed frosting duplicates the sweet taste of the cake and is therefore unnecessary and/or you might get confused about that whole frosting vs cake concept.
OK, that's as far as I go with the cake analogy :-)

[mdriftmeyer]

That actually cuts to the root problem of all of this... the telcos, and the way the whole cellphone business is carried out in the US (and some other parts of the world). And the way when the iphone first came out Apple chose to continue with the locked-to-a-carrier model, instead of just selling it unlocked and carrier-free. And then they forced the same model on the rest of the world, or at least everywhere else that didn't have reasonably meaty consumer protection and anti-competition laws preventing the sale of locked phones.
Locking phones to carriers for the duration of contacts is one of the most uncompetitive things going on, and the sooner the whole carrier-locked-phones model is thrown into the trash, the better. Yes, you'll pay more for the device up front, but you'll save in the long run and have the freedom that comes of being able to use your device freely, changing providers at will.
Because of the decision not to sell the iPhone unlocked from the start, the carriers now seems to have great influence over everything, and that is why we've ended up here arguing about what we can or cannot do with our own phones.
The thing is many people in the US seem to see government regulation as an infringement on competition, whereas in reality hard consumer protection laws, anti-monopoly legislation, etc such as those preventing the sale of locked phones and the enforcement of real competition in the ISP sector, in reality leads to way more competition.
You only have to take a look at the mess that is the US ISP & Telco sector to see what happens when a handful of large companies are allowed to get into a virtual-monopoly position, with consumers often having little real competition, and how it ends up completely at odds with the interests of the users and indeed the public at large.
I guess I just find it a bit disappointing that apparently there are lots of people ready to vehemently defend the same model that ends up screwing them....

Brain dead, hyperbole of non-reasoned reality, regarding Apple choosing lock in over unlocked.

Denser than Lead that analysis angle is indeed.

Either Apple accepted exclusivity while retaining Phone control or accept being hand cuffed and dictated by Verizon.

Only AT&T capitulated to Apple controlling the Phone+OS+Apps+Distribution Service.

[*LTD*]

Apple is staying true to its "user experience first" policy that has been in effect for years, and their "we give you what we like and you can come and play" policy. This all ties into it. You might think it's getting to extremes now, but that's the same reason we choose Apple in the first place.

You can blame the consumer. They're all flocking to the iPhone in droves. And there's a lot more to come. No real Android presence. No real WinMo presence. Pre is in the bag. RIM is in the bag. Symbian is bleeding. iPhone is the clear choice.

You can blame the developers, too. They aint leavin. And there's a lot more on the way.

So who's right after all? The complainers on this thread? Or those that continue to help make the iPhone platform what it is, regardless of GV?

Seems like a tough call all around.

[bruinsrme]

Fart apps and flashlights. :D

Cmon how can you not give an honorable mention for tip calculators

[KnightWRX]

You can blame the consumer. They're all flocking to the iPhone in droves. And there's a lot more to come. No real Android presence. No real WinMo presence. Pre is in the bag. RIM is in the bag. Symbian is bleeding. iPhone is the clear choice.

Did you just ignore the market research that shows iPhone is a distant third to RIM and Nokia in the Smartphone market ?

Did you also just ignore the fact that Android is a newcomer to the market and climbing fast ? Sprint and Verizon are receiving their first Androids this autumn. T-mobile is the only supplier in the US and they are the 4th carrier by a good margin. Rogers in Canada received the Android in June and I already know people using them.

Are you that deluded ? Apple is facing very fierce competition in the cell phone market.

And no, I didn't choose a Mac because it was a closed ecosystem (obviously, it's not closed at all). I chose the Mac because it was a Unix operating system and that I could run everything I was running on my Linux system, without the chore of having to run Linux itself.

Not to mention everyone I know with an iPhone has it jailbroken and uses apps from Cydia...

[occamsrazor]

You can blame the consumer. They're all flocking to the iPhone in droves. And there's a lot more to come. No real Android presence. No real WinMo presence. Pre is in the bag. RIM is in the bag. Symbian is bleeding. iPhone is the clear choice.

Errr.... I'm not sure where you're getting this from. While it's undeniable that the iPhone has been a huge success, particularly as Apple was a new entrant in the mobile phone arena, and personally having been forced to use one by my company I think Windows Mobile *sucks*...... I don't think you can really dismiss Symbian and RIM just like that. In 2009 Q2 Nokia had 45% worldwide market share of new smartphone sales, RIM 18.7%, and Apple 13.3%.

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1126812

[bruinsrme]

Let me just make sure I understand:

If I don't like Apple's iPhone app approval process for the iPhone, I should not let my voice be heard, I should just sell my phone, even though there are other things I like about it, and hope Apple changes their ways without any feedback at all.

Just like if I don't like the lack of matte screens on the Macbook Pro, I should sell my Macbook and not say anything about it.

Just like if I don't like the lack of a Firewire port on any 13.3 inch laptop, I should just buy a different laptop and not say anything about it.

Am I getting this all correct?:rolleyes:

Some of the people in this thread make me sick. Of course Apple has every right to do whatever they want to do within the law. But this does not mean that I, or anyone else, does not have the right to state our opinions about their choices. By all means, vote with your wallet. I will be checking out other phones when my contract is up for this very reason, but that does not mean I am not allowed to give feedback to Apple or to voice my opinion on this forum. If you are tired of hearing it, turn off your computer or go to a different thread.

This free country allows Apple to do what they want, this free country allows me to complain about what I want, and this free country allows you to defend Apple. My main problem with the "apologists" is not that they are defending Apple. It is the irony of the them defending Apple by saying this is a free country, but then complaining about others with the opposite opinions.

yes you hit the nail right on the head.

[occamsrazor]

So who's right after all? The complainers on this thread? Or those that continue to help make the iPhone platform what it is, regardless of GV?.

You make it sound like there's just a handful of people out there unhappy at Apple's restrictions. Recent data shows the number of jailbroken iPhones is up to 8.43% and rising rapidly:

http://justanotheriphoneblog.com/wordpress/iphone-news/percentage-of-jailbroken-iphone-users-rises-a-little

Given that the total number of iPhones sold is now around 26 million:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPhone_sales_per_quarter.svg#Data_and_references

...that represents about 2.2 million users who felt strongly enough that the appstore wasn't delivering what they wanted, to jump through the hoops and take on the risks of jailbreaking it. 8.4% may not be a majority, but it's not insignificant either, and isn't that far off from the market share of Mac OS X itself.

[KnightWRX]

You make it sound like there's just a handful of people out there unhappy at Apple's restrictions. Recent data shows the number of jailbroken iPhones is up to 8.43% and rising rapidly:

http://justanotheriphoneblog.com/wordpress/iphone-news/percentage-of-jailbroken-iphone-users-rises-a-little

Given that the total number of iPhones sold is now around 26 million:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPhone_sales_per_quarter.svg#Data_and_references

...that represents about 2.2 million users who felt strongly enough that the appstore wasn't delivering what they wanted, to jump through the hoops and take on the risks of jailbreaking it. 8.4% may not be a majority, but it's not insignificant either, and isn't that far off from the market share of Mac OS X itself.

That's not counting the people who aren't happy that just aren't buying an iPhone and would if the app store policies were looser, and all the people that have an iPhone, grumble to themselves and just don't do anything about it.

[kkat69]

I cared about a month ago.

I didn't even care then.

[yayaba]

Not to mention everyone I know with an iPhone has it jailbroken and uses apps from Cydia...

For every example there's a counter example. I seriously must know at least 15+ people with iPhones and only one of them swears by the jailbreak. And he does it only so he has that pull down menu to be able to toggle wifi/bluetooth/3g on and off quickly.

The other 14+ are all fine living with Apple's closed ecosystem. Me included. Yes, it sucks and there shouldn't be limitations but in our busy lives, we just don't care enough to complain about this or to see this as a barrier to work & play.

[KnightWRX]

The other 14+ are all fine living with Apple's closed ecosystem. Me included. Yes, it sucks and there shouldn't be limitations but in our busy lives, we just don't care enough to complain about this or to see this as a barrier to work & play.

It's the reason I don't have an iPhone personally. Like the other poster said, it seems that the discontent is more than just edge cases, with over 8% jailbroken iPhones out there.

The fact you're fine living with the artificial bounderies set by Apple doesn't mean you wouldn't be as fine in an open ecosystem, or at least, a more open one. As such, it makes no sense for you or others in this thread (*cough* LTD *cough*) to stiffle people who are just trying to get their voices heard by Apple.

The same people who got their Matte screen back on the Macbook Pros...

[kgraf6]

Did you just ignore the market research that shows iPhone is a distant third to RIM and Nokia in the Smartphone market ?


I think you're forgetting the short amount of time the iPhone has been on the market in comparison to these others. Also, Apple make one phone, while these others make many different models.


Apple attempt to achieve PERFECTION with every product they create. Rejecting applications that they believe will negatively effect the user experience is no different to them allowing limited personalisation options for their Mac OS X GUI and iPhone UI.

I am a perfectionist myself, and when I look at Windows users that have changed the way the interface looks, I simply cringe.

Setting a perfect image for the company and its products requires restricting users from screwing with it.

The majority of customers are satisfied with Apple making these choices. Those that are not, should not be using Apple products.

[occamsrazor]

The stupid thing is everyone could easily have what they want.... Look at Mac OS X. You have a tight user-interface, some really great Apple software, with published user interface guidelines.
If you're happy with just the Apple-sanctioned software you're completely free to stick with only that.
On the other hand there's an infinite number of 3rd Party apps available that don't need to go through an "approval process" and if you want you have full access to the whole UNIX underbelly. You're free to do whatever you want with it, even to the point of running completely different operating systems on it such as Windows or Linux. On Mac OS X Apple doesn't do anything to prevent you from installing any 3rd party software you want.
So what is the reason the iPhone can't be the same way?

[Stewie]

This thread is more fun the watching a pro-life protest outside a woman's clinic.

/Apple is the pro-life people in case you were confused.

[ratGT]

Apple and Google were doing so many things 'together' (heck, even Apple's board included the Google-representative) that I started thinking that there was a common 'bunch of people' backing-up both companies (and I'm sure most of the people reading the progress of these two companies thought the same too, at one point or another). These kind of news almost verify that this belief is true after all, as they throw 'mud' to consumer's eyes to make them think that they are rival companies (after all). So they started with 'cheap' tricks such as Android, only to continue with even cheaper tricks (which 'inflated' all this drama) with 'news' such as the approval of he Google Voice app on the iPhone. I don't buy all this for even one split-second, and anyone who stands against this theory, he lives in his own utopia, where he still believes that the commercial market is healthy and that smaller companies still have a chance to make it big...

[KnightWRX]

I think you're forgetting the short amount of time the iPhone has been on the market in comparison to these others. Also, Apple make one phone, while these others make many different models.

So essentially, you're saying Android is about to destroy the iPhone ? It's new from this year, and it's getting more models (Motorola is now in, Samsung is coming and so is Sony Ericsson). Android is about to get deals with Verizon and Sprint in the US, putting in on 3 of the top 4 carriers.

They already have the same marketshare Apple had with the iPhone at this same time after launch. They have technology Apple is just now copying (tethering, Augmented Reality apps). I hope Apple also sees this or the iPhone is going to get destroyed or relegated to a niche.

The majority of customers are satisfied with Apple making these choices. Those that are not, should not be using Apple products.

Yeah, let's kick out all those rebels, misfits and round pegs in square holes. Conform or get out!

Why would GV being available hurt those customers that are satisfied with the current offering ? Last I checked, after Apple approves an app, it doesn't automatically download to every iPhone.

And has the massive ecosystem of 3rd party apps without approval ruined OS X ?

I think you're being a bit close minded.


So what is the reason the iPhone can't be the same way?

The reason is obvious. Apple Computers Inc. has disappeared, along with everything it stood for.

where he still believes that the commercial market is healthy and that smaller companies still have a chance to make it big...

I hope this change you're talking about took place in the last 10 years, because Google wasn't so big in 1998.

[gibbz]

And has the massive ecosystem of 3rd party apps without approval ruined OS X ?

OS X is completely different. You are comparing apples to oranges.

iPhone OS is essentially forced into a single form factor with system dictated constraints. Not to mention you have another company to consider (AT&T). Those limitations mean that Apple has a far greater need/concern to ensure a positive user experience. Now, I realize that a lot of the jailbreaking apps and system features are cool, but don't act like they have all been flawless. There have been ample stability issues on jailbroken phones.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you. I simply wish to state that one cannot draw exact parallels between Apple's policies on its desktop OS and one on its phone. They are completely different animals.

[KnightWRX]

OS X is completely different. You are comparing apples to oranges.

iPhone OS is essentially forced into a single form factor with system dictated constraints. Not to mention you have another company to consider (AT&T). Those limitations mean that Apple has a far greater need/concern to ensure a positive user experience. Now, I realize that a lot of the jailbreaking apps and system features are cool, but don't act like they have all been flawless. There have been ample stability issues on jailbroken phones.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you. I simply wish to state that one cannot draw exact parallels between Apple's policies on its desktop OS and one on its phone. They are completely different animals.

GV runs on iPhone. This is not a system dictated constraint. This is a People dictated constraint.

And no, mobile computing like the iPhone and full-fledge computers aren't so different at all. The form factor is not an excuse at all, except to a few people who just don't want to believe that Apple isn't always right.

And again, AT&T has no qualms about GV. AT&T's blackberry users are already using the GV app. iPhone users can use GV with the web interface (which isn't as intuitive) without any problem either. GV doesn't replace services that AT&T provides, except for Voicemail.

[impulse462]

While it is true that they have approved VOIP apps on the iPhone, Google Voice not only has a dialer/Contacts UI but it does an end run around the carrier phone system. How would you expect them to approve something like that? Get real people.

Also, given than Google Voice has limited availability (US only), I dont' see the point for it. Don't you guys have unlimited evenings and weekends on AT&T?

Here in Canada on Fido, my unlimited Evenings and weekends start at 5pm local time.

I'm sick and tired of all of the Americans on here whining about services that are only applicable to them. Boo fricken hoo.

This is the most retarded thing i've read. Google Voice works perfectly from a safari web window. So why shouldn't there be an app that does exactly that except everything you need is a few touches away compared to navigating a small safari window.

[occamsrazor]

They really aren't that different.... all machines have constraints in one way or another, e.g. battery life, heat, etc on macbooks. Apple doesn't prevent me from installing video-encoding software on my macbook because it might lead to lower battery life and a poorer user experience. Yes the iPhone may have more constraints, but the principles are really much the same.
What IS different, as you rightfully point out, is Apple has another company to consider - the locked-in cell carrier. And it's becoming increasingly clear that Apple is looking after their interests at the expense of those who actually buy their products.
All this trouble with App Store apps not getting approved - mostly because they would adversely affect the business model of Apple's corporate partner yet would be beneficial and save money for consumers - is an increasingly glaring example of why phones should be sold unlocked and contract-free, as they are already in many other countries, and carrier-lockin must be regulated out of existence.

[Music_Producer]

The information in your forum is very useful.

Best post - refreshing change from all the complainers and supporters :D

[KnightWRX]

When a company is suspected of violating Anti Trust laws, the gov should look into it. Apple is trying to shut out the competition, Since Google an Apple are competing more an more, with their OS, & Phone.

Please, tell us how Apple is shutting out Google from competing in the market ? Last I checked, GV on iPhone wasn't needed at all for Google to offer the service or from offering Android to phone makers or from getting Android to be picked up by carriers.

People spouting non-sense about anti-trust should learn a thing or two about markets.

[AppleCrakintosh]

I think you're forgetting the short amount of time the iPhone has been on the market in comparison to these others. Also, Apple make one phone, while these others make many different models.


Apple attempt to achieve PERFECTION with every product they create. Rejecting applications that they believe will negatively effect the user experience is no different to them allowing limited personalisation options for their Mac OS X GUI and iPhone UI.

I am a perfectionist myself, and when I look at Windows users that have changed the way the interface looks, I simply cringe.

Setting a perfect image for the company and its products requires restricting users from screwing with it.

The majority of customers are satisfied with Apple making these choices. Those that are not, should not be using Apple products.


If I buy a Ferrari I own it, a Bentley I own it, a House I own it, an iPhone, I own it. If I want to paint my car I will, if I want to customize my iPhone I will, if I want to put an addition on my house I will.

I should not be prevented from doing so by my Car Dealer, Mortgage Company or the company who designed my cell phone. My MacBook & MBP are customized to my liking the iPhone should be no different. An who are you to be saying I shouldn't be using Apple's products, you stay under Steve Jobs desk, but I'm bustin out. That's why I am a % point in the 8.4% that have Jailbroken their iPhones.

Because I like a majority of other iPhone users would prefer if asked to be able to use our phone with any carrier that we want an would LOVE the OPTION to download any app or theme we want.

The Chinese goverment is shipping all new PC's with internet tracking software that blocks porn and Anti Communist web traffic. What's next? Apple blocking anything Microsoft related, or perhaps Steve doesn't like porn, and we can no longer take 5 minutes with a box of kleenex to the bathroom with our phones.

Keep swinging from Steve's nuts and telling yourself you don't mind paying for something and owning it, but being told you can't do this, or that.

[me-mac]

If GV were to run on the iPhone, you'd get people saying;

'Hey, What's that?'
'It's an iPhone with Google Voice'...

Duplicating a weather app is one thing, duplicating core functionality of a device and all but replacing it's UI with it's own, while uploading the users contacts' details to some server somewhere is another thing.

From a branding perspective, if you were a car manufacturer, would you allow another company to replace your car engine with their own? Once enough people start using Google Voice on an iPhone, word spreads and so will it's users. If they find Google Voice to be an invaluable function of their devices and Google then decided to pull the app or be slow with upgrading or make things not quite as smooth as on their own phones what you would see is users migrating to Android. That is the only way they are going to get the kind of numbers of iPhone users to use their own phones and they know it.

Apple has every right to reject such an application if they consider it to be a threat. Which it is. If you don't think it's a threat then you are ignorant to branding, marketing and business in general.

Google releases this press release to draw attention to it's cause and leverage the power of the whining crowds as it knows people, not companies are making the decisions these days. They play it out like it's unfair, unjust and they have no other motives than to put a free application on the iPhone. If that were their real motive, why are they whining about it so much?

Apple created something great and they have every right to protect it from the hoards of vultures that want a piece of the pie, Palm included. If these other companies are so great, why don't they have more users? Why don't they just be inventive, creative and make something new that everyone will want to have instead of piggy-backing on the back of success? It makes me sick to see copies of products or so-called 'big boys' jumping up and down like children screaming 'it's not fair, Mum', when they don't have the competence or ability to lead the market themselves.

If you want Google Voice so much, get another phone.

[AppleCrakintosh]

Please, tell us how Apple is shutting out Google from competing in the market ? Last I checked, GV on iPhone wasn't needed at all for Google to offer the service or from offering Android to phone makers or from getting Android to be picked up by carriers.

People spouting non-sense about anti-trust should learn a thing or two about markets.

Even though I can't understand your reply because it reads like a dyslexic person wrote it, I will still try to respond.

I'm talking about Apple, hindering my ability to try Google's software.
Let's say 1 person out of the 23 Million who own an iPhone, tried Google Voice an decided to buy an android phone. Point.

Had Apple designed a GPS app that shipped with the iPhone, we wouldn't see a google GPS or TOMTOM.

If GV were to run on the iPhone, you'd get people saying;

'Hey, What's that?'
'It's an iPhone with Google Voice'...

Duplicating a weather app is one thing, duplicating core functionality of a device and all but replacing it's UI with it's own, while uploading the users contacts' details to some server somewhere is another thing.

From a branding perspective, if you were a car manufacturer, would you allow another company to replace your car engine with their own? Once enough people start using Google Voice on an iPhone, word spreads and so will it's users. If they find Google Voice to be an invaluable function of their devices and Google then decided to pull the app or be slow with upgrading or make things not quite as smooth as on their own phones what you would see is users migrating to Android. That is the only way they are going to get the kind of numbers of iPhone users to use their own phones and they know it.

Apple has every right to reject such an application if they consider it to be a threat. Which it is. If you don't think it's a threat then you are ignorant to branding, marketing and business in general.

Google releases this press release to draw attention to it's cause and leverage the power of the whining crowds as it knows people, not companies are making the decisions these days. They play it out like it's unfair, unjust and they have no other motives than to put a free application on the iPhone. If that were their real motive, why are they whining about it so much?

Apple created something great and they have every right to protect it from the hoards of vultures that want a piece of the pie, Palm included. If these other companies are so great, why don't they have more users? Why don't they just be inventive, creative and make something new that everyone will want to have instead of piggy-backing on the back of success? It makes me sick to see copies of products or so-called 'big boys' jumping up and down like children screaming 'it's not fair, Mum', when they don't have the competence or ability to lead the market themselves.

If you want Google Voice so much, get another phone.

I am just pointing out a point of view, I am extremely happy with my jailbroken iPhone, I have a Google Voice app from Cydia an maybe have used it 4 times. It's not useful to me tho, my whole point is, what's wrong with options, Apple should offer the option. If I leased my car I doubt I could drop a diff manufacturers engine in it, but if I bought it outright, yea I can do that.

[Freyqq]

I do, but I then think about how much more app developers could do if THEY HAD MORE CONFIDENCE in the APPROVAL PROCESS.

Explain to me why it's ok to have a VOIP app but not the GV app?

In what way is the VOIP app not Duplicating features?

What about all of those weather apps?

What about all of those calc apps?

Quit apologizing for Apple.

w00master

it would be one thing if apple clearly defined what was and was not allowed...but repeatedly that seems to not be the case

why put thousands of $ into development of an app and then have it rejected? Apple is essentially squashing any creativity and limiting the quality of apps b\c any break in the status quo risks a rejected app.

[AppleCrakintosh]

Once enough people start using Google Voice on an iPhone, word spreads and so will it's users. If they find Google Voice to be an invaluable function of their devices and Google then decided to pull the app or be slow with upgrading or make things not quite as smooth as on their own phones what you would see is users migrating to Android. That is the only way they are going to get the kind of numbers of iPhone users to use their own phones and they know it.

Apple has every right to reject such an application if they consider it to be a threat. Which it is. If you don't think it's a threat then you are ignorant to branding, marketing and business in general.

I used the App, it's not that great that it would move even a substantial amount of users IF it moved 100 that would be amazing. Apple is confident enough is it's design an functionality of OSX that Boot Camp comes standard on all Macs so you can run Windows on your Mac. Last I checked, Microsoft was Apple's biggest threat. So explain that decision then, an I highly doubt Google's master plan was to design a simple app with the goal to bring thousands or even millions of users to Android.

[pdjudd]

When a company is suspected of violating Anti Trust laws, the gov should look into it.
The FCC does not investigate Anti-trust issues. That would be the FTC and last I checked, they do not have any pending investigation much less prosecution involving the matters between Apple and Google in regards to Google Voice rejection.

Please cite the areas in which Apple is in violation of anti-trust and cite relevant and factual case law that shows proof of said anti-trust.

[Peabody]

Supposedly, Google has more up their sleeve. Not sure of what to make of the article, but some more fodder none the less...


"...Google has yet another nuke waiting on the sidelines - a screen shot of the actual rejection notice via the iPhone developers admin with the formal rejection."

:eek:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803652.html

[cumanzor]

Some of us just don't care. And really, we don't need the geek contingent on MR telling us what we should or should not care about or consider important issues.


Hmmm, the ironic thing is that you are the one telling everyone here that everything is fine and that we shouldn't give a **** about this. Yours is an interesting case, it is usually MS apologists who say that they are fine with being told what to do, not the other way around. I guess we have all kind of fanboys in the world

You want to be that much in control? Just grab a copy of Windows. Enjoy.

Lol no, please don't. If you want freedom, go Linux.

[pullfocus]

Not that I agree with Apple if they indeed reject the application, doesn't Google seem to be spreading themselves a bit thin? Either that or creating a somewhat completely core environment of their own?
Google Voice, Google Latitude, Chrome, Google OS, Android, etc. I think one problem Google is running into with Apple is trying to compete on their level.
Now, I'm not saying Apple is better than Google or vice versa, but Google seems to be traispsing into almost every communications market this last year.
So, in doing so, they are coming up against issues and competition that they couldn't really forsee.
"Google search on the iPhone and Safari, fine. Chrome on a Mac, sure. Google Maps on the iPhone, no problem. Google Voice? Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold on, junior. Now you're out of your element here. Who do you think you are?"

Now, at the end of the day, I think AT&T had a huge hand in the rejection (or pending rejection) of the GV app on the iPhone.

I just find it odd that some are complaining that Apple is a borderline monopoly, but at the same time, it seems like Google is trying to to become the same, or at least a one-stop shop for all things communication. I mean this is the same thing that MS tried to do, and it bit them in the butt, and the same thing Apple seems to be doing, and it might very well bite them in the tuckus as well.
I just don't know why Google would want to try and travel down a road already littered with corpses.
So to speak.

If I am wrong, or off the mark, I am willing to be corrected as I don't anywhere near claim to be an expert.

[me-mac]

I used the App, it's not that great that it would move even a substantial amount of users IF it moved 100 that would be amazing. Apple is confident enough is it's design an functionality of OSX that Boot Camp comes standard on all Macs so you can run Windows on your Mac. Last I checked, Microsoft was Apple's biggest threat. So explain that decision then, an I highly doubt Google's master plan was to design a simple app with the goal to bring thousands or even millions of users to Android.

I think Google is confident that they can poach customers; as I explained in my post, once people invest into the system and reply on it, Google can take strategic steps to make it cumbersome for iPhone users and a wonderfully simple experience for Android users.

To throw the argument back, why is Google pursing this matter so rigorously?

Apple shipping bootcamp is a reverse tactic, not a show of confidence. It brings users to the Apple OS. With Microsoft OS's even I would be confident enough to write an OS that users would prefer - nothing comes close to OSX and never will. What's more, is the iPhone also brings in new users so it's experience should be an 'Apple' one and not a mixture of several different companies. I know there are a million apps from other developers out there but we are talking about a core function of the device which defines it. A bit like changing the iPod application for a Zune app. Apple rightly wants to defend and protect the experience users have with it's device.

A phone service and an OS are two very different things. One is something that you must be able to get along with, interact with easily and it's success depends on a multitude of variables and personal preferences. A phone service is like the difference between Fed Ex and whatever. One is cheaper or more reliable than the other - there's not a lot else that determines it's popularity or success. And so if users start to enjoy or prefer the Google Voice experience over the AT&T/Apple experience, it puts Apple in somewhat vulnerable situation.

Besides which, even if users do not move to Android and stick with their iPhones, who's making money? AT&T loses some, Apple won't pick up new customers based on that app alone. Google wants the world to use it's system not matter what platform. Money changes hands between Apple and AT&T and both parties do well out of it I imagine. Enter Google which climbs through an open back door and takes all the cash.

[cumanzor]

Enter Google which climbs through an open back door and takes all the cash.

I don't think Google actually employs this kind of tactics. But whow am I to be sure honestly.

I guess it is just a matter of principle. I cannot see how Apple behavior's regarding this is not anti-competitive. Google has every reason to be pissed off, they are losing a huge chunk of potential users due to this.

[me-mac]

I don't think Google actually employs this kind of tactics. But whow am I to be sure honestly.

I guess it is just a matter of principle. I cannot see how Apple behavior's regarding this is not anti-competitive. Google has every reason to be pissed off, they are losing a huge chunk of potential users due to this.

It's not a matter of employing tactics; It's a reality if enough users use GV on an iPhone. If the app makes it to the phone, AT&T and Apple should see some of the action. If it was some bedroom developer making millions of dollars with this open back door, that would put a blip on the radar.

Being 'anti-competitive' is competing. Google's backdoor approach would be just piggy-backing on others' ingenuity, successes and infrastructure rather than 'competing' head on. Let them make Android as compelling an experience as the iPhone then I'll shut up.

You don't see Xbox and Sony allowing each other to meddle with their core experiences. 3rd party companies develop applications that run on their machines, not replace their core experiences and values. Those experiences are what make them unique and gain or lose customers, and customer loyalty accordingly. They are strictly protected and rightly so.

Thus far, there are no rules or laws that state a developer must continue to support and application that has been approved for the iPhone. If Google Voice was pulled by Google or as I said before, strategically downgraded when thousands of users depended on it, it would put a dent in Apples brand.

[bozzykid]

while uploading the users contacts' details to some server somewhere is another thing.

The app never did that according to all reports I have read. It's just FUD spread by Apple fanboys to provide an excuse for it's rejection. The contact syncing was only one direction (downloaded from your GMail contacts).

[hanpa]

It comes down to this:

User A: I have an iphone and really like everything it does, it suits me personally, and I have no need for further functionality.

User B: I also have an iphone and really like everything it does. But I also would like not to be prevented from installing some software that would make the product much more useful for me, which is completely optional to install, and which would in no way alter or affect the way User A uses his iphone.

User A: User B must be prevented from doing this, he doesn't need this, he should be happy with the functionality he has.

I just don't get this rationale.

I'm surprised of the number of User A type in this forum. They're probably Apple employees since this logic is otherwise very hard to understand.

[kgraf6]

An who are you to be saying I shouldn't be using Apple's products, you stay under Steve Jobs desk, but I'm bustin out. That's why I am a % point in the 8.4% that have Jailbroken their iPhones.

The Chinese goverment is shipping all new PC's with internet tracking software that blocks porn and Anti Communist web traffic. What's next? Apple blocking anything Microsoft related, or perhaps Steve doesn't like porn, and we can no longer take 5 minutes with a box of kleenex to the bathroom with our phones.

Keep swinging from Steve's nuts and telling yourself you don't mind paying for something and owning it, but being told you can't do this, or that.

Ok, I suppose I'll cop that.

Look, all I am trying to say is that you are asking a company that has operated fundamentally the same from its inception, to now change.

You of all people (having jailbroken your iPhone) should know by now how Apple chooses to keep their platform closed and under their control.

I retract my original statement, you have every right to use Apple products; just stop your whinging. You obviously already know how to install unapproved software and customize your mac, so I really don't see what point you are making.

If you've come to the conclusion that I am an Apple fanboy then you are hugely mistaken, considering I use multiple other platforms including Google products. I am simply trying to say that everyone on this forum knows this is the way Apple does things. What is the point in whinging about it?

[cumanzor]

Being 'anti-competitive' is competing

Hmm, I disagree. If this was the case then we wouldn't have any problem with whatever Microsoft did back then.

You have to protect your stuff, I agree, but what Apple is doing here is limiting the choice of the customer. The way I see it would like if Microsoft suddenly decided that only IE can be used on Windows, or Apple decides that only Safari can be used on OS X.

[kgraf6]

Hmm, I disagree. If this was the case then we wouldn't have any problem with whatever Microsoft did back then.

You have to protect your stuff, I agree, but what Apple is doing here is limiting the choice of the customer. The way I see it would like if Microsoft suddenly decided that only IE can be used on Windows, or Apple decides that only Safari can be used on OS X.

Or like Apple restricting Mac OS X from running on anything other that Apple hardware?

Restricting users' choices is the way Apple always have and will continue to run their business.

Rejecting the Google Voice app should not be a surprise to anyone.

[Michael CM1]

Even though I can't understand your reply because it reads like a dyslexic person wrote it, I will still try to respond.

I'm talking about Apple, hindering my ability to try Google's software.
Let's say 1 person out of the 23 Million who own an iPhone, tried Google Voice an decided to buy an android phone. Point.

Had Apple designed a GPS app that shipped with the iPhone, we wouldn't see a google GPS or TOMTOM.

That's about as ultimate as the point gets. I don't know what all the FCC rules are, but I doubt there's one that says "you must allow your competitors to put stuff on your stuff." Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

It's things like this that have me increasingly worried about Google. Yes, they have a very good search engine. But it seems like there's some new app that Google throws out there every day, and I think they're all FREE. Where exactly is all the income coming from that allows Google to do this? If it's all coming in from Web search, isn't Google violating antitrust laws?

I just read a kinda hilarious viewpoint piece from PC World about how VoIP will replace regular calling plans. Why? Because he said so. Seriously, he gave no reason other than saying because it can be done. The problem with this is the bandwidth deluge. Regular voice calls on a landline are about 4kbps. I'm betting that most VoIP calls are at least 64k, if not 128k. That's an insane amount of extra bandwidth. This doesn't even address the fact that 3G is hardly everywhere.

I just hope someone starts investigating Google because they're starting to get too big for their britches. At least Microsoft built it's dominance by actually charging people for stuff. I have yet to give Google a single cent, but somehow that company puts stuff everywhere. That frightens the heck outta me.

[crusadernm]

Apple, for shame.

[hanpa]

it would be one thing if apple clearly defined what was and was not allowed...but repeatedly that seems to not be the case

why put thousands of $ into development of an app and then have it rejected? Apple is essentially squashing any creativity and limiting the quality of apps b\c any break in the status quo risks a rejected app.

I agree. And new apps are likely to contain less features that possible due to the risk of beeing rejected. I'm considering registering as a developer but have serious doubts regarding spending a lot of time on an app without understanding how Apple will handle the approval. This leads to the following for the App Store:

1. Many great apps are never written
2. Many potentially great apps are crippled even at first attempt just to reduce the risk of being rejected
3. Many great apps are crippled by Apple/AT&T (due to the "non-agreement") to pass the approval process, e.g. Wi-Fi only for some features despite the fact that this is not motivated outside of the US
4. Apps are updated in several stages to add feautures after the first "low-risk" approval. And since the approval already takes very long time, the problem gets even worse by

The Android process is much better. And yes, the users are smart enough to understand the risk of installing an app that has not been checked in detail before being available in the store. Automated checks for safety related issues like on the Android seems to be good enough in combination with at clear statement regarding what is allowed and not.

And regarding the "non-agreement" between Apple and AT&T. AT&T must design their network to handle all traffic that the users can create or regulate this according to their plans with their customer. I actually don't believe this talk about risk of congestion since the network should already handle this and if not, this problem can be handled by software upgrades in the GSM nodes. I think the real reason is just that AT&T don't want competition related to voice calls and SMS but refers to network congestion instead. And Apple plays along because of the "non-agreement".

That's about as ultimate as the point gets. I don't know what all the FCC rules are, but I doubt there's one that says "you must allow your competitors to put stuff on your stuff." Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

It's things like this that have me increasingly worried about Google. Yes, they have a very good search engine. But it seems like there's some new app that Google throws out there every day, and I think they're all FREE. Where exactly is all the income coming from that allows Google to do this? If it's all coming in from Web search, isn't Google violating antitrust laws?

I just read a kinda hilarious viewpoint piece from PC World about how VoIP will replace regular calling plans. Why? Because he said so. Seriously, he gave no reason other than saying because it can be done. The problem with this is the bandwidth deluge. Regular voice calls on a landline are about 4kbps. I'm betting that most VoIP calls are at least 64k, if not 128k. That's an insane amount of extra bandwidth. This doesn't even address the fact that 3G is hardly everywhere.

I just hope someone starts investigating Google because they're starting to get too big for their britches. At least Microsoft built it's dominance by actually charging people for stuff. I have yet to give Google a single cent, but somehow that company puts stuff everywhere. That frightens the heck outta me.

The bandwidth for VoIP calls is so low when compared to all other traffic. 3G cellular is available in most countries, the US seems to be an exception. Spotify uses 160 kbit/s here in Sweden, no problems whatsoever to use that on 3G and VoIP requires less than that. I have about 2-3 Mbit/s effective download rate on both Wi-Fi and 3G cellular. The network can handle this and my plan allows me to use it without restrictions whatsoever (including VoIP). I actually don't use my iPhone as a phone at all but I might if VoIP was allowed on 3G cellular. If I really need Skype calls on 3G, I'll definitely jailbreak my device but I'd prefer not to.

[seedster2]

Despite their devotion in defending anything apple, they do have a point.

If you are fed up with some of these ridiculous iPhone policies, complain all you want but switch the platform and/or vote with your wallet. The same objectors will still go out and buy the next iPhone despite Apple's actions. Apple and telcos are greedy. hit em where it hurts. I went back to BB. The only limitation is youre contracted so leaving may not be so easy

I have no doubt in my mind that both ATT/Apple have some collusive agreement to reject applications. I am happy the government is intervening to hopefully penalize them. You can do what you want to your store, but you can't partner with a telecom to make those rejections and then give a bogus explanation

iPhone's dominance is likely short-lived. No one stays on top forever. Upon initial launch many didnt buy because of the crazy costs. Now that they priced it more sensibly, we are seeing huge numbers (no kidding?) Once Palm OS and Google reach other carriers we will have more competition. Hopefully, it will put an end to the smug shortsided points about sales, developers flocking, etc. - Put more focus on giving the consumer what they want

[bruinsrme]

snipet
iPhone's dominance is likely short-lived. No one stays on top forever. Upon initial launch many didnt buy because of the crazy costs. Now that they priced it more sensibly, we are seeing huge numbers (no kidding?) Once Palm OS and Google reach other carriers we will have more competition. Hopefully, it will put an end to the smug shortsided points about sales, developers flocking, etc. - Put more focus on giving the consumer what they want

I agree with the life span of the iphone.
Google is experimenting at Apple's expense, which I applaud as genius.
The google phones will improve and may start attracting jailbreakers if google doesn't try to lock down the phone and if google can align itself with (in the US) verizon. Then ATT and Verizon will really be head to head with two similar functioned phones. I really don't think itunes will be an issue as someone will do something to allow itunes operability.
I think it will get interesting to see if the tight control of apple will reign over a more open platform (if google goes that route). It just might turn into a pc vs mac situation. Jus my thoughts

[kdarling]

I don't know what all the FCC rules are, but I doubt there's one that says "you must allow your competitors to put stuff on your stuff."

For carriers, there are such rules. That's the pain for their gain. They must sublease equipment to other businesses (virtual providers, local carriers). And allow anyone's compatible equipment on their lines.

For handset manufacturers, no. At least, not yet. If the FCC does a flip and decides that they're a major part of the ecosystem, who knows. We might see something like this for 4G.

Sixteen or so years ago, net neutrality also included allowing any compatible application to run on your network. I was the head of a major carrier lab working on a universal API. The idea was to allow any device, any app, on any network.

When another administration dropped software net neutrality, the carriers dropped all those projects like hot potatoes.

However, one good fallout of those times was the DOCSIS standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS)for cable boxes.

[j-Phone]

Being 'anti-competitive' is competing. Google's backdoor approach would be just piggy-backing on others' ingenuity, successes and infrastructure rather than 'competing' head on. Let them make Android as compelling an experience as the iPhone then I'll shut up.


Good point! I have an iPhone and I am all Mac at home, but there are things about Apple company that sucks and I hate the fact that Apple holds back features and dictates to the user what they should and should not have based on Apple's infinite wisdom to know what is best for the user. For example, people quickly forget the iPhone launched without MMS and after what 2-3 years of it's existence, we are now just seeing MMS. It was reported that Steve Jobs responded to the no MMS complaints from users and all he could say was: "But you can send pics through E-mail." Steve Jobs has a personal philosophy and core beliefs that when he believes in them, he wants you to believe in them and will MAKE YOU BELIEVE IN THEM! For example, making the new Macs without Firewire 400. Any audio, vdieo professional knows that they don't make devices that operate on Firewire 800, except for hardrives.

So I said all this to say that although I hate the philosophies of Apple, you have to respect the fact that it's their device and if Google wants to push their app, then they should make their Adroid just as innovative and special so that it totally de-thrones the iPhone. Google is way more open, but just don't have the cool factor that Apple has.

[occamsrazor]

For example, making the new Macs without Firewire 400. Any audio, vdieo professional knows that they don't make devices that operate on Firewire 800, except for hardrives.

Off-topic, but you do realise FW800 is backward-compatible with FW400? You just need to use a FW400>FW800 cable, and you can use any FW400 device from your Mac's FW800 port?

[guet]

What is the point in whinging about it?

Apple can and has changed in the past because of constructive criticism.

There's nothing wrong with saying that Apple got it wrong in this instance (and with many other app rejections), and that they should change. That doesn't make you a bad person, doesn't make anti-apple, and doesn't mean you are whining.

Sometimes Apple gets it wrong, sometimes they act with a little too much hubris and not enough humility - when they do, they need their customers to step up and tell them straight that it's unacceptable, not scrabble round for tenuous excuses to defend them, and denigrate those who would criticise them.

They should not (morally) be using their enormous power on the app store to capriciously control other companies app development - Google could have spent months and serious employee time on these apps, only to see them canned without earlier warning by a partner who relies on Google for one of their most popular apps (Maps.app). Yes they can legally, but it's both wrong, and very bad for Apple in the long term. If they want to ban Google's app, they shouldn't be surprised to see Google turn up the heat on them and disallow use of tiles in their MapView component. Perhaps Google wouldn't because of the potential customer backlash, but there are many ways their enmity can cost Apple (and us as Apple users) in the future. So this move is not even in the self-interest of Apple long term.

If they tried this sort of stuff on the desktop users would be up in arms, and rightly so.

I'd encourage everyone that feels strongly about this to send feedback (http://www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html)to Apple letting them know (in polite terms) what you think.

[bjb.butler]

Am I the only one that just doesn't care? If you really need a GV app, you can just jailbreak your phone and get one.

Why does everyone seem so surprised by what Apple is doing? You knew before you bought your Mac / iPod / Apple TV / iPhone that they are a mini monopoly that likes to control your every move.

I'm all for openness, but this move by apple doesn't bother me at all. I also think that that since its public knowledge (and if it's true) that AT$T has nothing to do with the rejection, the whole FCC investigation should be closed. It's apple's hardware, it's apple's software, they have the right to approve / reject any app they don't want. You don't like it? Either:
a) Jailbreak your phone
b) get an android device

Problem solved.

The bandwidth for VoIP calls is so low when compared to all other traffic. 3G cellular is available in most countries, the US seems to be an exception.

I'm not sure if you know or not, but Google Voice does not use VoIP to make its calls, and the calls you make with GV actually count towards your monthly minute limitation. Bandwidth is not an issue here

They should not (morally) be using their enormous power on the app store to capriciously control other companies app development .

Don't bring morals into the fray when talking about others. Everyone has different morals, so just because you think they shouldn't be doing it, perhaps their morals are compelling them to do it.

Yes they can legally, but it's both wrong, and very bad for Apple in the long term. If they want to ban Google's app, they shouldn't be surprised to see Google turn up the heat on them and disallow use of tiles in their MapView component. Perhaps Google wouldn't because of the potential customer backlash, but there are many ways their enmity can cost Apple (and us as Apple users) in the future. So this move is not even in the self-interest of Apple long term.

To be frank, Apple has people with much more experience, knowledge, and skill than you do when it comes down to assessing what is best for their company both now and in the future. There are brilliant people working their both on the engineering side and on the financial side, and they know what they are doing. No company willingly does something to hurt itself in the future.

The people that are making these decisions have complete knowledge of what is going on. You on the other hand, are making outside assumptions based on information you read on the internet.

[hanpa]

Good point! I have an iPhone and I am all Mac at home, but there are things about Apple company that sucks and I hate the fact that Apple holds back features and dictates to the user what they should and should not have based on Apple's infinite wisdom to know what is best for the user. For example, people quickly forget the iPhone launched without MMS and after what 2-3 years of it's existence, we are now just seeing MMS. It was reported that Steve Jobs responded to the no MMS complaints from users and all he could say was: "But you can send pics through E-mail." Steve Jobs has a personal philosophy and core beliefs that when he believes in them, he wants you to believe in them and will MAKE YOU BELIEVE IN THEM!

Steve Jobs was right regarding MMS. We've had MMS in Sweden since 2002 but it's almost never used so I think only a few users would complain if MMS was removed as a service in the GSM network. And yes, pics are sent through email instead and there´s an email client in all mobile phones today.

[*LTD*]

Am I the only one that just doesn't care? If you really need a GV app, you can just jailbreak your phone and get one.

Why does everyone seem so surprised by what Apple is doing? You knew before you bought your Mac / iPod / Apple TV / iPhone that they are a mini monopoly that likes to control your every move.

I'm all for openness, but this move by apple doesn't bother me at all. I also think that that since its public knowledge (and if it's true) that AT$T has nothing to do with the rejection, the whole FCC investigation should be closed. It's apple's hardware, it's apple's software, they have the right to approve / reject any app they don't want. You don't like it? Either:
a) Jailbreak your phone
b) get an android device

Problem solved.

Don't bother. It's easier to cry about it for 300+ posts and several pages. This is what normally goes on at Macrumors.

[bjb.butler]

Steve Jobs was right regarding MMS. We've had MMS in Sweden since 2002 but it's almost never used so I think only a few users would complain if MMS was removed as a service in the GSM network. And yes, pics are sent through email instead and there´s an email client in all mobile phones today.

There may be an email client in most phones today but:
By far the largest group of people that use MMS are the younger crowd (teenagers in high school and below, maybe even some college). This is also the group that is the least likely to have a smartphone with an expensive data plan. Sending emails isn't an option for most teenagers. And even you were lucky enough to have a data plan in high school, most (if not all) of your friends didn't (believe me, I was there two years ago).

[slu]

Don't bother. It's easier to cry about it for 300+ posts and several pages. This is what normally goes on at Macrumors.

As opposed to you crying about people crying about it? Pot meet kettle.

Why do you continue to torture yourself and read the thread?

[*LTD*]

As opposed to you crying about people crying about it? Pot meet kettle.

Why do you continue to torture yourself and read the thread?

I can still comment if I want to. So can everyone else.

[hanpa]

There may be an email client in most phones today but:
By far the largest group of people that use MMS are the younger crowd (teenagers in high school and below, maybe even some college). This is also the group that is the least likely to have a smartphone with an expensive data plan. Sending emails isn't an option for most teenagers. And even you were lucky enough to have a data plan in high school, most (if not all) of your friends didn't (believe me, I was there two years ago).

According to the data plans in my country, the cost of sending an email from the mobile phone is much lower than sending an MMS. And all data plans I know of include basic internet use such as sending email. You don't need a smartphone, you'll find it hard to find a mobile phone without an email client. But this may be different in your country.

[SactoGuy18]

I think right now the FTC and the Justice Department may be quietly looking over what Google, Apple and AT&T said in their statements on the rejection of the Google Voice app.

If we find out that Apple and AT&T conspired together to reject the Google Voice app, that is a MAJOR violation of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act and could lead to some pretty serious legal action from the Feds--and the Feds could also go after Apple at the same time for the tight tie-in between the iPod portable media player and the iTunes software, too.

[hiimamac]

Hahahahahaha why am I not surprised?

Apple says I has not been rejected. Translation, we just need to find out how to cripple wi fi and free texting even though texts uses nonband with (google it) so after 1 year loyal AT&T customer, after seeing price of Tom Tom, I jail broke my 3G and now have:
Video Recording
Free Teethering
a program that scrolls up and down quick for web pages, you know instead of having to scroll scroll scroll 4 ever to get down a forum page.
Tom Tom Free which depending on when issues ironed out I may purchase.
Flash player browser.
Ability to autoinstall apps for free.
Ability to get into my var/etc sections of my phone.
Five rows of icons per page or I could use 8 if I wanted
ability yo use many vool themes, some are really cool.
One touch to pull up settings.
When phone on lock and I hit button I get latest weather, emails, news, missed calls and missed text messages, free.
Free mms although haven't played enough with it. The teethering is awesome as it's faster than my wives moms dsl.
3G unrestrictor which tricks iTunes into thinking 3g is wifi.
Ability to run anything in the background, example streaming baseball game, hold down home button, it's on, now I can browse the web or do anything I want.
And of course, GV Mobile. Just waiting for my invite which should be coming soon.
Really guys, it's worth at first I was like I don't know, it seems technical but was not, once you install a fee apps, it becomes easy, really easy, espcially the jail breaking just make sure you're not running 3.1 as that's not out yet plus I can sell this phone for more than $500, in fact was offered $650 which i turned down only because I fear all the iPhones in the store are probably at 3.1 now. My apple friends could tell me I guess as the serial changes.


Anyway, highly recommend and cyndia:icy will become your itunes app store in a way.

Peace.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Apple says I has not been rejected. Translation, we just need to find out how to cripple wi fi and free texting even though texts uses nonband with (google it) so after 1 year loyal AT&T customer, after seeing price of Tom Tom, I jail broke my 3G and now have:
Video Recording
Free Teethering
a program that scrolls up and down quick for web pages, you know instead of having to scroll scroll scroll 4 ever to get down a forum page.
Tom Tom Free which depending on when issues ironed out I may purchase.
Flash player browser.
Ability to autoinstall apps for free.
Ability to get into my var/etc sections of my phone.
Five rows of icons per page or I could use 8 if I wanted
ability yo use many vool themes, some are really cool.
One touch to pull up settings.
When phone on lock and I hit button I get latest weather, emails, news, missed calls and missed text messages, free.
Free mms although haven't played enough with it. The teethering is awesome as it's faster than my wives moms dsl.
3G unrestrictor which tricks iTunes into thinking 3g is wifi.
Ability to run anything in the background, example streaming baseball game, hold down home button, it's on, now I can browse the web or do anything I want.
And of course, GV Mobile. Just waiting for my invite which should be coming soon.
Really guys, it's worth at first I was like I don't know, it seems technical but was not, once you install a fee apps, it becomes easy, really easy, espcially the jail breaking just make sure you're not running 3.1 as that's not out yet plus I can sell this phone for more than $500, in fact was offered $650 which i turned down only because I fear all the iPhones in the store are probably at 3.1 now. My apple friends could tell me I guess as the serial changes.


Anyway, highly recommend and cyndia:icy will become your itunes app store in a way.

Peace.

WHOA! There are benefits to jailbreaking?? Man, it's not like they're listed in every single iPhone thread ever.

Also: free Tom Tom? For shame, man. We like to support our developers around here.

[Drag'nGT]

<------ don't care/wouldn't use it

Why is this such a big deal? Is it that Apple said no to an app or is it that OMG! they said no to..... Google!!!!!! *bump bum baaaahhh!!!!*

[RazHyena]

Apple says I has not been rejected. Translation, we just need to find out how to cripple wi fi and free texting even though texts uses nonband with (google it) so after 1 year loyal AT&T customer, after seeing price of Tom Tom, I jail broke my 3G and now have:
Video Recording
Free Teethering
a program that scrolls up and down quick for web pages, you know instead of having to scroll scroll scroll 4 ever to get down a forum page.
Tom Tom Free which depending on when issues ironed out I may purchase.
Flash player browser.
Ability to autoinstall apps for free.
Ability to get into my var/etc sections of my phone.
Five rows of icons per page or I could use 8 if I wanted
ability yo use many vool themes, some are really cool.
One touch to pull up settings.
When phone on lock and I hit button I get latest weather, emails, news, missed calls and missed text messages, free.
Free mms although haven't played enough with it. The teethering is awesome as it's faster than my wives moms dsl.
3G unrestrictor which tricks iTunes into thinking 3g is wifi.
Ability to run anything in the background, example streaming baseball game, hold down home button, it's on, now I can browse the web or do anything I want.
And of course, GV Mobile. Just waiting for my invite which should be coming soon.
Really guys, it's worth at first I was like I don't know, it seems technical but was not, once you install a fee apps, it becomes easy, really easy, espcially the jail breaking just make sure you're not running 3.1 as that's not out yet plus I can sell this phone for more than $500, in fact was offered $650 which i turned down only because I fear all the iPhones in the store are probably at 3.1 now. My apple friends could tell me I guess as the serial changes.


Anyway, highly recommend and cyndia:icy will become your itunes app store in a way.

Peace.


My brother got his jailbroken iPhone last week and is using another carrier. So far, so good. Everything works. He's installed interface hacks, a browser that works with Flash and a lot more. He guards it pretty damn good so I don't really know what else he's put on there.

Point is: He's using his iPhone to it's full potential; something locked iPhone users are missing out on.

[hanpa]

Apple says I has not been rejected. Translation, we just need to find out how to cripple wi fi and free texting even though texts uses nonband with (google it) so after 1 year loyal AT&T customer, after seeing price of Tom Tom, I jail broke my 3G and now have:
Video Recording
Free Teethering
a program that scrolls up and down quick for web pages, you know instead of having to scroll scroll scroll 4 ever to get down a forum page.
Tom Tom Free which depending on when issues ironed out I may purchase.
Flash player browser.
Ability to autoinstall apps for free.
Ability to get into my var/etc sections of my phone.
Five rows of icons per page or I could use 8 if I wanted
ability yo use many vool themes, some are really cool.
One touch to pull up settings.
When phone on lock and I hit button I get latest weather, emails, news, missed calls and missed text messages, free.
Free mms although haven't played enough with it. The teethering is awesome as it's faster than my wives moms dsl.
3G unrestrictor which tricks iTunes into thinking 3g is wifi.
Ability to run anything in the background, example streaming baseball game, hold down home button, it's on, now I can browse the web or do anything I want.
And of course, GV Mobile. Just waiting for my invite which should be coming soon.
Really guys, it's worth at first I was like I don't know, it seems technical but was not, once you install a fee apps, it becomes easy, really easy, espcially the jail breaking just make sure you're not running 3.1 as that's not out yet plus I can sell this phone for more than $500, in fact was offered $650 which i turned down only because I fear all the iPhones in the store are probably at 3.1 now. My apple friends could tell me I guess as the serial changes.


Anyway, highly recommend and cyndia:icy will become your itunes app store in a way.

Peace.

Tempting to jailbreak, I'll probably do that soon.

Go to the end of a long forum page can be done without jailbreaking, just add a bookmark with "javascript:window.scrollTo(0,1000000)"

Or with refresh: "javascript:window.scrollTo(0,1000000);javascript:window.reload"

[*LTD*]

<------ don't care/wouldn't use it

Why is this such a big deal? Is it that Apple said no to an app or is it that OMG! they said no to..... Google!!!!!! *bump bum baaaahhh!!!!*

If it was a run-of-the-mill game or Sudoku clone or conversion utility, no one would have given it a second thought. But since it was an app that a certain segment of user (mainly the Apple fan site kind) really, really wanted, it happened to grab the spotlight. Plus, it's a rejection of Google, not Joe Blow first-time developer, so it'll make headlines, you're right about that.

[bjb.butler]

According to the data plans in my country, the cost of sending an email from the mobile phone is much lower than sending an MMS. And all data plans I know of include basic internet use such as sending email. You don't need a smartphone, you'll find it hard to find a mobile phone without an email client. But this may be different in your country.

You need to have a data plan... And like I said, most young people, the ones that send MMS messages, don't have expensive data plans. How much it costs the carrier is irrelevant. True, almost all phones have email clients now, but that doesn't mean that the people using them pay for data, which is required to send an email last time I checked.

[kdarling]

By far the largest group of people that use MMS are the younger crowd (teenagers in high school and below, maybe even some college).

And another large group above age 60 or so, from the surveys I've seen. MMS is easier for them to do on an inexpensive phone, and they're unlikely to have an email address or care about one to begin with.

Apparently the email users are those in the middle, 30-55, who grew up with it, more or less.

Which helps explain why Jobs put MMS towards the bottom of the upgrade list... it just wasn't important to his age group.

This is also the group that is the least likely to have a smartphone with an expensive data plan. Sending emails isn't an option for most teenagers.

Yes, that's a big factor. Ditto for any age group as far as simply having a smartphone.

[slu]

I can still comment if I want to. So can everyone else.

Yes, you can. But you don't see the irony of making a post that complains about people complaining?

Seriously, in this whole thread your attitude has been that this is Apple's way, it has always been Apple's way, Apple's way is for the best, and you should know this before you bought your phone. If you don't like it you should shut up and go pound sand.

My problem is not that you think Apple has a right to do what it thinks is best for their customers (even though they are not doing that, they are doing what they think is best for their shareholders, as they should), but it is that you seem to think we have no right to disagree with Apple's position on the App Store approval process, and worse yet, that we have no right to post those opinions.

What is best for the shareholders is not always in the best interest of the public. Which is precisely why there is regulation in the US. This is what most of us are arguing. The fact that it is a Google app is immaterial. Yes, the fact that it is a Google app is what garnered our attention and got in the news, but I have the same opinion regardless of the app. As long as the app is not malicious in nature, I should be able to install whatever I want on my phone. Period.

[Masquerade]

Which helps explain why Jobs put MMS towards the bottom of the upgrade list... it just wasn't important to his age group. .

they should have put more people programming that feature. Like any other company would do.

[nikhsub1]

Yes, you can. But you don't see the irony of making a post that complains about people complaining?

Seriously, in this whole thread your attitude has been that this is Apple's way, it has always been Apple's way, Apple's way is for the best, and you should know this before you bought your phone. If you don't like it you should shut up and go pound sand.

My problem is not that you think Apple has a right to do what it thinks is best for their customers (even though they are not doing that, they are doing what they think is best for their shareholders, as they should), but it is that you seem to think we have no right to disagree with Apple's position on the App Store approval process, and worse yet, that we have no right to post those opinions.

What is best for the shareholders is not always in the best interest of the public. Which is precisely why there is regulation in the US. This is what most of us are arguing. The fact that it is a Google app is immaterial. Yes, the fact that it is a Google app is what garnered our attention and got in the news, but I have the same opinion regardless of the app. As long as the app is not malicious in nature, I should be able to install whatever I want on my phone. Period.
Best post in entire thread, thank you. ;)

[KnightWRX]

Even though I can't understand your reply because it reads like a dyslexic person wrote it, I will still try to respond.

I'm talking about Apple, hindering my ability to try Google's software.
Let's say 1 person out of the 23 Million who own an iPhone, tried Google Voice an decided to buy an android phone. Point.

Had Apple designed a GPS app that shipped with the iPhone, we wouldn't see a google GPS or TOMTOM.

That's the point, Apple is hindering you from trying Google's software. You can use Google Voice with the iPhone through the web interface or you can use Google Voice on Android or Blackberry or WebOS.

I'm not for the rejection, I think an open ecosystem would benefit the iPhone much more than this closed and controlled environnement, but you can't say Apple is violating any anti-trust laws because they are not in a position to control the market first, and second, they aren't stopping Google from offering the service at all.

And the personal insults kinda show your level of maturity, try to tone it down a bit if you want a serious discussion.

[cumanzor]

If it was a run-of-the-mill game or Sudoku clone or conversion utility, no one would have given it a second thought. But since it was an app that a certain segment of user (mainly the Apple fan site kind) really, really wanted, it happened to grab the spotlight. Plus, it's a rejection of Google, not Joe Blow first-time developer, so it'll make headlines, you're right about that.

I suggest you look into what Google Voice is actually able to do and how helpful it can be before comparing it to a Sudoku game....

[occamsrazor]

Why is this such a big deal? Is it that Apple said no to an app or is it that OMG! they said no to..... Google!!!!!! *bump bum baaaahhh!!!!*

Obviously the fact that it is Google means it will grab more attention than otherwise. On the other hand you have two of the largest tech companies in the world flat out accusing each other, in formal statements to the government, of being liars.
The significance of this case, however, comes from the perception by a lot of observers that this application wasn't rejected on any of the merits Apple claim, but simply because this application could save its users a lot of money while at the same time posing a threat to Apple's corporate telco provider who many iphone owners are locked into via contract. And thus it runs contrary to the public interest.

[leRiCl]

I think this signals a coming war between Apple and Google. IMO Google sees Apple as its only significant competitor in all areas besides search. internet services (.mac vs google suite), operating systems (chrome os vs mac os), and browser (chrome vs safari).

More simply, it'll be a clash between cloud computing and traditional 'desktop' computing. Currently Google is the champion of the cloud, and Apple is champion of the desktop.

At the moment I'm seeing Google trying to layer its cloud computing clients across desktops (Google Docs), laptops (the new google OS) and mobile devices (Google Voice, Android).

As much as I am on Apple's side when it comes to Apple vs Google, I have to say Google is a more capable company who will likely bring cloud computing to everyone and remove desktops from the scene. When it comes to Apple it really is one person that counts... Steve Jobs. Without Jobs, I think Apple will fade into the 'average' tech company. like microsoft, symantec and its ilk.

[occamsrazor]

I think this signals a coming war between Apple and Google. IMO Google sees Apple as its only significant competitor in all areas besides search.

Perhaps there might be a coming war between Google and Apple, I'm not sure or convinced either way.
What does seem clear is there is or will be a massive war between those companies that are trying to change communications such as Voice away from the traditional business model, and the telcos on the other side who are fighting it tooth and nail much like the music industry did when their business was threatened by the move to online.
And in this fight Apple, through its decision not to sell the iPhone unlocked and carrier-free, is on the side of the big telcos.

[leRiCl]

Perhaps there might be a coming war between Google and Apple, I'm not sure or convinced either way.
What does seem clear is there is or will be a massive war between those companies that are trying to change communications such as Voice away from the traditional business model, and the telcos on the other side who are fighting it tooth and nail much like the music industry did when their business was threatened by the move to online.
And in this fight Apple, through its decision not to sell the iPhone unlocked and carrier-free, is on the side of the big telcos.

There's nothing preventing Google putting Google Voice on Google phones, i.e Android.

Google's move to try to put Google Voice on iPhone is like sticking a billboard over the community notice board inside a supermarket, then getting paid to put ads on that billboard.

I'd bet you $10,000 the supermarket will 'reject' your application to do this.

[occamsrazor]

There's nothing preventing Google putting Google Voice on Google phones, i.e Android.

Of course there's not. And there's nothing preventing Google putting Google apps on Mac OS X. Or Apple putting iTunes on Windows. So why all the fuss about Google putting them on the iPhone?

Google's move to try to put Google Voice on iPhone is like sticking a billboard over the community notice board inside a supermarket, then getting paid to put ads on that billboard.

I don't see it's the same way at all. Google wanting to put GV on the iPhone is much like Skype wanting to put their application on Macs running OS X, which may in turn lead to decreased revenues from landline providers. No one sees a problem with that, it's up to the user, I can do whatever the hell I like with my Mac.
The difference is that the Apple who sold me my Mac aren't in bed with my landline provider and preventing me from installing Skype in order to protect my landline provider's business interests.
The Apple that sells iPhones are in bed with the telcos, and it's increasingly clear what that pact means for users.

[slu]

There's nothing preventing Google putting Google Voice on Google phones, i.e Android.

Google's move to try to put Google Voice on iPhone is like sticking a billboard over the community notice board inside a supermarket, then getting paid to put ads on that billboard.

I'd bet you $10,000 the supermarket will 'reject' your application to do this.

Google Voice is on Android, as well as Blackberry and I believe Windows Mobile.

Your analogy makes no sense.

[*LTD*]

I suggest you look into what Google Voice is actually able to do and how helpful it can be before comparing it to a Sudoku game....

I read about it a month ago when it was news.

I wasn't interested in it enough to get all worked up over it rejection or delay.

[Rodimus Prime]

I will laugh if google just decides to yank map access from the iPhone. Google Maps gone. Boy people would be pissed about that.

[RobertD63]

Im not gonna read the thread but I have to know.
WHATS THE FUSS ABOUT?? Apple controls the App store. We've known this. They reject apps for no reason. I know this. My apps get rejected for the stupiest reasons. FCC dont invesitgate my cases do they? I know Im not a huge compay like Google (Big brother).. But come on. Move on. Who cares. I really dont. I have skype, same effing function.

[*LTD*]

I think this signals a coming war between Apple and Google. IMO Google sees Apple as its only significant competitor in all areas besides search. internet services (.mac vs google suite), operating systems (chrome os vs mac os), and browser (chrome vs safari).

More simply, it'll be a clash between cloud computing and traditional 'desktop' computing. Currently Google is the champion of the cloud, and Apple is champion of the desktop.

At the moment I'm seeing Google trying to layer its cloud computing clients across desktops (Google Docs), laptops (the new google OS) and mobile devices (Google Voice, Android).

As much as I am on Apple's side when it comes to Apple vs Google, I have to say Google is a more capable company who will likely bring cloud computing to everyone and remove desktops from the scene. When it comes to Apple it really is one person that counts... Steve Jobs. Without Jobs, I think Apple will fade into the 'average' tech company. like microsoft, symantec and its ilk.

You're sorely underestimating Apple. But you're only speculating, after all. That's all we can do. In any case, I'm betting Apple knows exactly what their doing in this area.

Google's promised Chrome OS seems to be targeting the low end, not OS X. Further, Apple already has a Cloud computing paradigm, as well as a data centre, which seems to only be a part of their opening moves in the Cloud game.


I will laugh if google just decides to yank map access from the iPhone. Google Maps gone. Boy people would be pissed about that.

iMaps.

It's already in the works. ;)

[Neotyguy40]

This is turning into one of those 'I never lie' arguments. They could either be telling the truth and they never lie, or they could be lieing and they do lie.

Either way, until this sort's itself out, I think I can live without using the changes Google has in planned.

I could see why both of them would happen:

Google: If google is lieing, they would be trying to weaken Apple as their competition when they enter the OS wars.
Apple: If Apple is lieing... Well I don't really know why Apple would lie, but they are smart and would know how to work with it.

[MorphingDragon]

This is just hype to promote the Android phones in the fall. No more, no less. I wouldn't be surprised of Google expected a rejection to exploit it like this.

Any publicity is good publicity. Specially for Linux devices. :D

[leRiCl]

Of course there's not. And there's nothing preventing Google putting Google apps on Mac OS X. Or Apple putting iTunes on Windows. So why all the fuss about Google putting them on the iPhone?



I don't see it's the same way at all. Google wanting to put GV on the iPhone is much like Skype wanting to put their application on Macs running OS X, which may in turn lead to decreased revenues from landline providers. No one sees a problem with that, it's up to the user, I can do whatever the hell I like with my Mac.
The difference is that the Apple who sold me my Mac aren't in bed with my landline provider and preventing me from installing Skype in order to protect my landline provider's business interests.
The Apple that sells iPhones are in bed with the telcos, and it's increasingly clear what that pact means for users.

Google isn't prevented from putting Google Voice on the iPhone. They're just rejected from being placed in the "iTunes Store". There's nothing stopping them from putting it via alternative means, such as Cydia. Except for image reasons, they won't do it.

I believe Apple has the right to decide which software is sold via the web store just as supermarkets can choose what goods can go on their shelves.

Apple is not a monopoly. It is simply a company operating in monopolistic competition. It is only in the short term that Apple might appear like a monopoly.

Meanwhile, no one says anything about Google owning both sides of the fence in terms of buying and selling ad space.

[KnightWRX]

Google isn't prevented from putting Google Voice on the iPhone. They're just rejected from being placed in the "iTunes Store". There's nothing stopping them from putting it via alternative means, such as Cydia. Except for image reasons, they won't do it.


The fact that jailbreaking an iPhone is a breach of the EULA ? Cydia is far from legitimate. The App store is the only legitimate distribution method for iPhone and iPod Touch applications.

[hanpa]

Google isn't prevented from putting Google Voice on the iPhone. They're just rejected from being placed in the "iTunes Store". There's nothing stopping them from putting it via alternative means, such as Cydia. Except for image reasons, they won't do it.

I believe Apple has the right to decide which software is sold via the web store just as supermarkets can choose what goods can go on their shelves.

Apple is not a monopoly. It is simply a company operating in monopolistic competition. It is only in the short term that Apple might appear like a monopoly.

Meanwhile, no one says anything about Google owning both sides of the fence in terms of buying and selling ad space.

Apple is a monopoly regarding the iPhone. They don't allow alternative App Stores or other means of installing apps unless you jailbreak your device. It's like buying a Mac and you can only buy and install third-pary software from www.apple.com or only from www.dell.com if you buy a Dell.

Apple's arguments regarding bad user experience or confusion after installing an app they have not approved according to their rules are just BS. I don't know the detailed capabilities of the iPhone OS but I'm sure that it's possible to set task priorities on third-party apps that doesn't cause bad user experience or stops use of the built-in apps such as Phone. And regarding user confusion, a very confusing app is likely to not be very popular so the market will take care of such issues.

I actually don't mind that Apple reviews and tests apps before being released in App Store. The problem is that apps are rejected due to functionality that threatens the monopoly (in non-agreement with AT&T). Rejection shall only be done due to safety issues such as virus or spamming, bad quality (many bugs), copyright issues etc. The Android approval process is much better but I don't mind a mix, that Apple keeps some manual checking to save the users from the worst apps. On the other hand, the current process has lead to a huge amount of burp and fart applications but has failed to approve great apps or having them crippled with 3G cellular restrictions that must be rectified by jailbreaking.

[guet]

Don't bring morals into the fray when talking about others. Everyone has different morals, so just because you think they shouldn't be doing it, perhaps their morals are compelling them to do it.

Please. Their reason, as stated by Schiller, is that it duplicates core functionality. That's not a moral stance, it's a disingenuous, hypocritical position which they haven't even bothered to enforce even-handedly. There are many many apps on the store which duplicate core functionality. If they have good reasons, they should tell Google and their customers what they are. As to moral relativism, I agree it is important to realise your own bias when trying to judge moral issues, but to use that as an excuse to not to address morals at all is entirely impractical. I simply used the word to distinguish between legal and moral wrong, in case somebody thought I was talking about legality.

To be frank, Apple has people with much more experience, knowledge, and skill than you do when it comes down to assessing what is best for their company both now and in the future. There are brilliant people working their both on the engineering side and on the financial side, and they know what they are doing. No company willingly does something to hurt itself in the future.

If the only customers Apple had were people like you, who appear to believe that a huge corporation will always make the right decision, we wouldn't even have an app store, we'd have web apps, and we'd like it. It is after all a 'really sweet solution', and was Apple's first choice for third party apps.

Companies hurt themselves all the time, because most large systems involving lots of people are pretty dysfunctional. Clever people also do stupid things. In Apple's case, look at firing Jobs in the first place way back when, launching the cube at a price which was too high, Copeland, etc etc. Your conclusion that a group of talented people == great decisions does not always hold true.

I'm not trying to second guess what they do all the time, and certainly don't believe I could run the company better than their team (of course not), but I do disagree with this decision, and have stated my reasons. I find them more persuasive than the hand waving and misdirection that Apple is engaging in. You may not.

[wshwe]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A400 Safari/528.16)

If Apple didn't reject Voice and Latitude then Apple should immediately put both in the App Store. Otherwise Apple is lying.

[amberashby]

Apple should just approve the App. and all this negative publicity would go away. I doubt many would use the app anyway.

[MorphingDragon]

Apple should just approve the App. and all this negative publicity would go away. I doubt many would use the app anyway.

All publicity is good publicity. Theres just a bad overtone too it.

[*LTD*]

Apple should just approve the App. and all this negative publicity would go away. I doubt many would use the app anyway.

Outside Mac forums and tech sites, barely anyone noticed. And of those that did, even fewer cared. I'm not sure Apple is in any rush to quash what doesn't exist in the first place.

[occamsrazor]

Outside Mac forums and tech sites, barely anyone noticed. And of those that did, even fewer cared. I'm not sure Apple is in any rush to quash what doesn't exist in the first place.

Yeah, sure, a search for "google voice app reject" only brings up 1.5 million hits, and the story has now crossed over from Tech sites to the mainstream media such NYTimes etc..... I'm not saying it's on the tip of the tongue of the world's population, but to say "barely anyone noticed" when it's patently false, is a bit silly.

[w0ngbr4d]

Apple is a monopoly regarding the iPhone.

All companies have an implied monopoly on their own products.

Apple is the only company who can make an iPhone, BMW is the only automaker that can make BMWs, Sony is the only company that can make the PS3.

A product isn't a market. A monopoly is a company who dominates a market. A monopoly itself isn't inherently illegal. It becomes illegal when that company uses its market position to prevent or disrupt competition in that market.

The relevant market is smart phones/cell phones. I don't believe that Apple has a monopoly in those markets yet.

[sjo]

All companies have an implied monopoly on their own products.

Apple is the only company who can make an iPhone, BMW is the only automaker that can make BMWs, Sony is the only company that can make the PS3.

A product isn't a market. A monopoly is a company who dominates a market. A monopoly itself isn't inherently illegal. It becomes illegal when that company uses its market position to prevent or disrupt competition in that market.

The relevant market is smart phones/cell phones. I don't believe that Apple has a monopoly in those markets yet.

iphone applications is a market, app store is a marketplace for those products. it's the only market place for those products. apple themselves are citing their rule that duplicating functionality is ground for rejection of application from the app store. how exactly is that not a company using its market position to prevent competition? as far as i can see, that's pretty much the definition of illegal monopolistic behaviour.

[hanpa]

iphone applications is a market, app store is a marketplace for those products. it's the only market place for those products. apple themselves are citing their rule that duplicating functionality is ground for rejection of application from the app store. how exactly is that not a company using its market position to prevent competition? as far as i can see, that's pretty much the definition of illegal monopolistic behaviour.

Yes. If the iPhone was just an old-fashioned phone with a few built-in applications, the comparison with BMW would apply. But a BMW does not offer a platform for executing general-purpuse applications. It's not the computer platform on the iPhone or on the iPod Touch that prevents great apps from being released, it's indeed Apple's monopolistic behavior. Don't know if this is against the law but it's a an enormous amount of badwill for Apple. Hard to tell but I think that Apple could easily double or even triple the iPhone sales by removing the restrictions that force more and more users to jailbreak their devices:

- 3G cellular restrictions, at least outside of the US. We don't use AT&T's network from the Cambrian period in the rest of the world.
- Allowing third-party applications to execute in the background. A must for music applications like Spotify.

Time to wake up, Apple!

[KnightWRX]

Apple is a monopoly regarding the iPhone.

Please look up what Monopoly means. Because what you just said now is completely ridiculous. By your definition, every company is a monopoly, because every company has a "monopoly" on their own products. Burger King sure isn't allowed to sell Big Macs and McDonald's can't sell Whoppers. Are Burger King and McDonald's monopolies ? Heck no.

A product is not a monopoly. To have a monopoly, you have to have a control position on a market, not a single product. Apple has plenty of competition in the smartphone arena and the cellphone market in general. They aren't even close to being number #1 (that honor goes to Symbian).

The rest of your argument is based on this flawed premise, and as such is completely garbage.

iphone applications is a market, app store is a marketplace for those products. it's the only market place for those products. apple themselves are citing their rule that duplicating functionality is ground for rejection of application from the app store. how exactly is that not a company using its market position to prevent competition? as far as i can see, that's pretty much the definition of illegal monopolistic behaviour.

No, No, No. And no. Did I say no ? iPhone applications is not a market. Smartphone applications are a market. If you don't like what Apple is doing with their platform (a product), you can move to a different platform. Blackberry has apps you can build and sell, Symbian to, WebOS, Android, etc.. Again, Apple is not even #1 in the marketplace.

Apple doesn't have a control position on the smartphone market. End of story. There is no monopoly. As much as I dislike what they are doing with the App Store, they are not abusing any kind of monopoly. You get to vote by going to the competition, which in some cases is stronger than they are. That's what I'm doing, waiting on some good offering by Android (new phones announced every week now) or Nokia's new platform (they are #1 with Symbian right now) Maemo.

You guys seem to believe that Apple is the first to offer some kind of programmable cellphone platform. You're dead wrong. J2ME and Symbian have been around for about 3 years prior to the iPhone. My very very old Sony Ericsson could run J2ME with SE extensions and Symbian stuff. SE had a SDK available with an emulator available back in 2003.

[hanpa]

Please look up what Monopoly means. Because what you just said now is completely ridiculous. By your definition, every company is a monopoly, because every company has a "monopoly" on their own products. Burger King sure isn't allowed to sell Big Macs and McDonald's can't sell Whoppers. Are Burger King and McDonald's monopolies ? Heck no.

A product is not a monopoly. To have a monopoly, you have to have a control position on a market, not a single product. Apple has plenty of competition in the smartphone arena and the cellphone market in general. They aren't even close to being number #1 (that honor goes to Symbian).

The rest of your argument is based on this flawed premise, and as such is completely garbage.

Since the iPhone and the iPod touch are general-purpose handheld computer platforms, there is an enormous amount of products/apps available now and in the future. Hard to understand that you don't recognize Apple's control position on that market.

I don't expect to be able to install applications on a Big Mac hamburger, I do expect to be able to do that on my iPhone. If there was a world-wide used application standard for handheld computers, I could búy apps anywhere and the handheld computer platform anywhere, as for the PC/Windows market. If such a standard was available and widely used, we would see some real competition.

[KnightWRX]

Since the iPhone and the iPod touch are general-purpose handheld computer platforms, there is an enormous amount of products/apps available now and in the future. Hard to understand that you don't recognize Apple's control position on that market.

I don't expect to be able to install applications on a Big Mac hamburger, I do expect to be able to do that on my iPhone. If there was a world-wide used application standard for handheld computers, I could búy apps anywhere and the handheld computer platform anywhere, as for the PC/Windows market. If such a standard was available and widely used, we would see some real competition.

You are free to get another general purpose handheld devices that meets your needs better.

There are plenty available, not all of them run Windows.

Apple has no control position on that market, they are a small player in the market. Nokia, the top player, is not even in a control position. Competition is very healthy in the market for either Smartphones or Internet type tablets/devices that can run 3rd party apps.

Just because you are blind to alternatives doesn't mean Apple is a monopoly or is abusing that monopoly they don't have by restraining their distribution channels.

[RaZaK]

Engadget does a really good job at explaining it in terms we can all understand.

Which, of course, begs the question: If you can't create a program that duplicates functionality, and you can't create a program that offers a new feature, what programs can you create?

[bold mine]

Maybe Apple just wants to continue encouraging the hacking community with this kind of behavior? Why don't they just admit they're scared of Google outshining them on their own phone? :rolleyes:

On a side note, it would be hilarious if Google was using the iPhone customer base to beta test software they eventually plan on releasing in Android. lol :D

[kdarling]

Outside Mac forums and tech sites, barely anyone noticed. And of those that did, even fewer cared. I'm not sure Apple is in any rush to quash what doesn't exist in the first place.

It has been front page news on CNN, USA Today, BBC, WSJ and every financial or tech journal. And not for just a day.

The impact of any FCC rule change is huge, affecting the whole country and its future. So yes, Apple's part in this is very much noticed.

You might not paying much attention, but many others are. It's naive to try to downplay the importance of any changes that might come from this.

[KnightWRX]

On a side note, it would be hilarious if Google was using the iPhone customer base to beta test software they eventually plan on releasing in Android. lol :D

You got it to other way around. Android already has a Google Voice application. Android was also first to get tethering (well, not first, but they had it since launch, before the iPhone). Android also already has Augmented reality apps, something that's a new possibility only in 3.1.

In many ways, iPhone is taking bits and pieces from Android and vice versa.

You might not paying much attention, but many others are. It's naive to try to downplay the importance of any changes that might come from this.

He's down playing it, because if you haven't notice, *LTD* can never admit that Apple was wrong.

[w0ngbr4d]

iphone applications is a market, app store is a marketplace for those products. it's the only market place for those products. apple themselves are citing their rule that duplicating functionality is ground for rejection of application from the app store. how exactly is that not a company using its market position to prevent competition? as far as i can see, that's pretty much the definition of illegal monopolistic behaviour.

I could buy some land and open a flea market (app store). Instead of people having garage sales (selling apps on their own) people could pay a fee to set up a table and sell items to a wide variety of people who visit that flea market (the "market" inside the app store). I could prohibit certain items from being sold in my flea market for whatever reason I want (Apple's restrictions) because I own the flea market (app store). I am not being monopolistic because people could sell the prohibited items, like weapons (Google Voice) at a gun show (Android, Blackberry, etc).

...Hard to tell but I think that Apple could easily double or even triple the iPhone sales by removing the restrictions that force more and more users to jailbreak their devices...

I don't remember what the last statistic was, but the % of jailbroken devices hasn't even hit 10% because a majority of consumers don't care. If the percentage was 40% or 50% then you could have a valid argument.

What would happen if Apple decided to discontinue the App Store tomorrow? All they would have to do is flip a switch, disable it, prorate the developer's fees, issue refunds and make one last payment of profits to the developers. Given that example (which would never happen in real life, it makes too much money) is the App Store still a market or is it a product of Apple?

[KnightWRX]

I don't remember what the last statistic was, but the % of jailbroken devices hasn't even hit 10% because a majority of consumers don't care. If the percentage was 40% or 50% then you could have a valid argument.

Actually, I say that having close to 10% of iPhones being jailbroken is significant. Don't forget that jailbreaking requires a bit of digging around and locks you out of upgrading your phone unless you want to go through it again.

This is not something that is done outside of tech circles and the iPhone is used by a much wider audience that just geeks. Those people who don't know about jailbreaking can still be against the level of control Apple is exercising over the App store.

[hanpa]

Actually, I say that having close to 10% of iPhones being jailbroken is significant. Don't forget that jailbreaking requires a bit of digging around and locks you out of upgrading your phone unless you want to go through it again.

This is not something that is done outside of tech circles and the iPhone is used by a much wider audience that just geeks. Those people who don't know about jailbreaking can still be against the level of control Apple is exercising over the App store.

Jailbreaking may not be that popular in the US since the cellular networks cannot in general be used to the same level as in other countries. In Sweden e.g. I think that about 99% of the iPhone owners know that it's possible to jailbreak but also that there's a risk involved. If there was no risk at all involved, I'm sure that 90% or even more would do it. We have paid for plans that allow us to use our cellular network and the network can handle all the traffic. We really don't understand why Apple should put world-wide restrictions on the apps just because the US with AT&T is stuck in the 20th century regarding mobile internet.

[bjb.butler]

Jailbreaking may not be that popular in the US since the cellular networks cannot in general be used to the same level as in other countries. In Sweden e.g. I think that about 99% of the iPhone owners know that it's possible to jailbreak but also that there's a risk involved. If there was no risk at all involved, I'm sure that 90% or even more would do it. We have paid for plans that allow us to use our cellular network and the network can handle all the traffic. We really don't understand why Apple should put world-wide restrictions on the apps just because the US with AT&T is stuck in the 20th century regarding mobile internet.

that's not a good reason at all as to why more Swedish people know about jailbreaking

[Hypocrite]

Worst Case Scenario it gets that bad and ugly Google just might have the nudge to cut off Google Search, Images, Maps, Youtube etc.... But thats just Worst Case Scenario in this situation.....

[hanpa]

that's not a good reason at all as to why more Swedish people know about jailbreaking

I think it is. If you have a mobile network you've paid for and allows 7.2 Mbit/s or more with no or few restrictions, you seek solutions to the problem that Apple/AT&T will not allow full use of the network. When solutions are found, they are spread to other users through friends and internet forums. If you live in the US and don't even have 3G cellular or are not allowed to use it according to your plan, there´s no problem to seek solutions to.

AT&T is starting to deploy 3G in selected states at the end of 2009, we've had fully working 3G cellular networks for several years. If Apple haven't changed their policy in a couple of years, US citizens will start jailbreaking en masse when 3G is available but cannot be used.

[bjb.butler]

I think it is. If you have a mobile network you've paid for and allows 7.2 Mbit/s or more with no or few restrictions, you seek solutions to the problem that Apple/AT&T will not allow full use of the network. When solutions are found, they are spread to other users through friends and internet forums. If you live in the US and don't even have 3G cellular or are not allowed to use it according to your plan, there´s no problem to seek solutions to.

AT&T is starting to deploy 3G in selected states at the end of 2009, we've had fully working 3G cellular networks for several years. If Apple haven't changed their policy in a couple of years, US citizens will start jailbreaking en masse when 3G is available but cannot be used.

AT$T has had 3G up and running for years... I'm not sure where you are getting your information.

[hanpa]

AT$T has had 3G up and running for years... I'm not sure where you are getting your information.

Here:

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/09/atandt-announces-rollout-plans-for-7-2-mbps-3g-service/

[bjb.butler]

Here:

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/09/atandt-announces-rollout-plans-for-7-2-mbps-3g-service/

oh, you're talking about 7.2... my mistake.

Regardless, what does that have to do with people jailbreaking their phones... I just fail to see how it connects.

[Masquerade]

i would love to see Apple applying the same politics for app aproval in their Mac OS X. ;)

[hanpa]

oh, you're talking about 7.2... my mistake.

Regardless, what does that have to do with people jailbreaking their phones... I just fail to see how it connects.

I understand there is an agreement between AT&T and Apple with the aim to avoid congestion in the cellular network. I'm not sure if this is BS or if the network really cannot handle the traffic. We don't have these restrictions here in Sweden and in most other countries.

One of the most common reasons to jailbreak is to trick the app to believe that you're on Wi-Fi instead of 3G cellular. When I do a bandwidth test on my iPhone, I have an effective download rate of about 2-3 Mbit/s on both Wi-Fi and 3G cellular and have a plan that allows me to use 3G cellular for whatever I want. But many apps are crippled to allow only Wi-FI. Examples are Skype calls, network disk or music synchronization (Spotify), high quality YouTube etc. If I jailbreak my device, I can use all this as I should be able to since any restrictions due to AT&T are not valid in my country.

[flyguy206]

Just jailbreak it and get GV

[bjb.butler]

I understand there is an agreement between AT&T and Apple with the aim to avoid congestion in the cellular network. I'm not sure if this is BS or if the network really cannot handle the traffic. We don't have these restrictions here in Sweden and in most other countries.

One of the most common reasons to jailbreak is to trick the app to believe that you're on Wi-Fi instead of 3G cellular. When I do a bandwidth test on my iPhone, I have an effective download rate of about 2-3 Mbit/s on both Wi-Fi and 3G cellular and have a plan that allows me to use 3G cellular for whatever I want. But many apps are crippled to allow only Wi-FI. Examples are Skype calls, network disk or music synchronization (Spotify), high quality YouTube etc. If I jailbreak my device, I can use all this as I should be able to since any restrictions due to AT&T are not valid in my country.

Are you saying that because you have jailbroken your phone, you can use skype over 3G?

[outphase]

Are you saying that because you have jailbroken your phone, you can use skype over 3G?

There's a jailbreak app that's called 3G Unrestrictor or something like that.

[KnightWRX]

Are you saying that because you have jailbroken your phone, you can use skype over 3G?

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. Jailbroken iPhones can run 3G Unrestrictor, which does just that, let you run Skype over 3G.

[i.mac]

Apple should just approve the App. and all this negative publicity would go away. I doubt many would use the app anyway.

...you think?

Apple will never win on this one. That being the case, they should do whatever the heck they want.

Google wants a successful free phone platform for their programs: the iphone. To this Apple is saying: in your face... my way or the android way...

[i.mac]

Outside Mac forums and tech sites, barely anyone noticed. And of those that did, even fewer cared. I'm not sure Apple is in any rush to quash what doesn't exist in the first place.

...I think you are right.

I tested your theory, and no-one in my family or most of my friends know about GV, let alone android or any of the hoopla around Apple and the app store. Most folks simply do not care.

may be folks in this forum represent a very small (but vociferous and opinionated) minority... ? ahhh... who cares...

[occamsrazor]

Google wants a successful free phone platform for their programs: the iphone. To this Apple is saying: in your face... my way or the android way...

If Google were to sell it on AppStore with Apple's approval, wouldn't Apple be making a nice profit out of it?

[i.mac]

Any publicity is good publicity. Specially for Linux devices. :D

exactly... I want to try a goggle phone now, especially since I can play with the source... :) I am more interested in using android to drive autonomous robots, so I would probably hack the phone to drive a robot 1000 miles away with a simple phone call... and a data plan. Android may be better than iPhone OS after all... :)

[i.mac]

If Google were to sell it on AppStore with Apple's approval, wouldn't Apple be making a nice profit out of it?

you may be right, but google does tend to give apps for free. In this case, Google would win regardless, and Apple would have to support the google app with their own money. Not a good situation. This is in part something that a lot of folks are missing: the money trail.

In all cases, something tells me that Apple is the type of smart company that can easily see short profits as hindrance for long term goals.

[Thex1138]

Maybe Schmidtty didn't have a nice exit from the board after all...

[Thex1138]

Double-Tap to the Submit Button in error...

[KnightWRX]

Google wants a successful free phone platform for their programs: the iphone. To this Apple is saying: in your face... my way or the android way...

They ported the app to the much more successful Blackberry platform. But no one believes that this appstore nonsense could end up harming the iPhone's growth, so why bother with facts.

[FakeWozniak]

Google is evil, so I like someone denying them for ANY reason.

Am I the only one who sees this? If any company is anti-competitive, Google ranks #1 in my mind with Microsoft being #2. An ideal scenario has them obliterating each other and continuing on into obscurity.

[kernkraft]

Google is evil, so I like someone denying them for ANY reason.

Am I the only one who sees this? If any company is anti-competitive, Google ranks #1 in my mind with Microsoft being #2. An ideal scenario has them obliterating each other and continuing on into obscurity.

You can put Apple on that list too.

I don't want to use iTunes just because I have an iPhone and an iPod; but it would be nice to be able to listen to my purchases on my Creative music player as well, just to name one reason.

I wouldn't go as far as calling a company evil. But I understand the Google reference. So, I think Apple is lacking some integrity too, hence my suggestion.

But denying them for ANY reason - as you say - from a company (purely on personal preference) is SO Apple. Also, it is so bad for consumers. Would you burn down your house just to annoy your neighbour?

[Target362]

well google is run by foreigners. not to menton they have such ugly GUIs

[Thex1138]

well google is run by foreigners.

Which foreigners in particular?

[kernkraft]

well google is run by foreigners.

For me, you are a foreigner! So can you explain, what's the matter with being one?

[KnightWRX]

but it would be nice to be able to listen to my purchases on my Creative music player as well, just to name one reason.

And what's preventing you from doing this ? Unless you mean the fairplay crap we had to put up with for a while, nothing is stopping you from playing your iTunes bought music on any device you like.

[kernkraft]

And what's preventing you from doing this ? Unless you mean the fairplay crap we had to put up with for a while, nothing is stopping you from playing your iTunes bought music on any device you like.

I think the format is and has been preventing me from using my purchases. And copy protection probably would. It's a bit like booking a trip and receiving air miles. At least, that's how I feel.

[yg17]

well google is run by foreigners. not to menton they have such ugly GUIs

Everyone is a foreigner. I'm a foreigner to people outside the US. They're foreigners to me. And the band Foreigner certainly isn't running Google.

And for having such ugly GUIs they sure have become the most popular web service on the internet.

[H. Flower]

I think you're forgetting the short amount of time the iPhone has been on the market in comparison to these others. Also, Apple make one phone, while these others make many different models.


Apple attempt to achieve PERFECTION with every product they create. Rejecting applications that they believe will negatively effect the user experience is no different to them allowing limited personalisation options for their Mac OS X GUI and iPhone UI.

I am a perfectionist myself, and when I look at Windows users that have changed the way the interface looks, I simply cringe.

Setting a perfect image for the company and its products requires restricting users from screwing with it.

The majority of customers are satisfied with Apple making these choices. Those that are not, should not be using Apple products.

cosign

I trust Apple's taste and I WANT them to define to my experience.

Yes, GV should be on the iphone and yes, most apps are for kids, but I trust the company to make the right decisions in the long term, as they usually do.

[kernkraft]

I find the whole 'interfering with user experience' argument extremely shallow.

Here is the deal, I think - Google has an app, you download it if you want to and use it if you like it. And you decide, whether it improves your experience or not. The app is not interfering with the iPhones' setup, it only provides a feature that is also provided by Apple. So it's up to you, which one you prefer. And that's how it should be. Rotten Apple! It wants to @@@@ with its customers?! How is it better not to have the choice?!

[kernkraft]

_

[occamsrazor]

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1295.html

[rcarranza]

Gotta side with Apple on this one. Why would they want to approve an app that takes away from the phone core function? If you want to use Google voice then get an Android phone. You wouldn't walk into a BMW garage and ask for them to install the engine/internals of an Audi! :rolleyes:

Why do Google have to control/have a stake in everything?

Does anyone else think that if Google wins this then we'll look back one day and realise that this moment was when Google became evil?

[*LTD*]

I find the whole 'interfering with user experience' argument extremely shallow.

Here is the deal, I think - Google has an app, you download it if you want to and use it if you like it. And you decide, whether it improves your experience or not. The app is not interfering with the iPhones' setup, it only provides a feature that is also provided by Apple. So it's up to you, which one you prefer. And that's how it should be. Rotten Apple! It wants to @@@@ with its customers?! How is it better not to have the choice?!

Which has the been the attitude of MS designers and engineers for the last decade.

Maintaining the User Experience has its price. But I'd rather sacrifice an app or two for it than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The whole point is that Apple designs and controls the user experience. That's the hook. That's one of the keys to their success. Hence, the iPhone. You're describing a Windows-centric situation, which is the last thing anyone needs. And judging by the success of the iPhone so far, Apple's strategy is working out beautfully.

I'd rather Apple take the User Experience paradigm too far than start to erode it little by little. That ish starts to add up over time.

It's a single app out of 70,000+ apps. Get over it. It might be worth asking for, but it's in no way, shape or form worth altering Apple's core strategy.

User Experience is EVERYTHING. If you don't like it, there are other platforms to choose from.

[VoR]

The whole point is that Apple designs and controls the user experience. That's the hook. That's one of the keys to their success. Hence, the iPhone. You're describing a Windows-centric situation, which is the last thing anyone needs. And judging by the success of the iPhone so far, Apple's strategy is working out beautfully.


User Experience is EVERYTHING. If you don't like it, there are other platforms to choose from.

What about the marketing aspect? :)
Everyone I know that has an iphone is buying one because they've seen it on tv or think that it's the 'in' thing to get - literally. They certainly haven't bought them for 'oh my the user experience is great'.

I don't see how anyone can argue that limiting the device is better. Most people that buy a gadget like these can use it is out of the box with the app store, while people that want to use (or develop for) the device as a portable computer and to its full potential should be allowed to...

[*LTD*]

What about the marketing aspect? :)
Everyone I know that has an iphone is buying one because they've seen it on tv or think that it's the 'in' thing to get - literally. They certainly haven't bought them for 'oh my the user experience is great'.

I don't see how anyone can argue that limiting the device is better. Most people that buy a gadget like these can use it is out of the box with the app store, while people that want to use (or develop for) the device as a portable computer and to its full potential should be allowed to...

Well why do you think it's the "in" thing to get in the first place. Made by Apple. Why and how do you think Made by Apple became so desirable?

User Experience. Just like any and nearly all other Apple products. It's dificult to explain in words, but it's the reason Apple is the single most important tech company today. It's what differentiates Apple from the rest of the pack. This goes back well over a decade.

It comes down to a costs vs. benefits issue. It isn't necssarily limiting the device. In fact, Apple's device appears to be the most non-limited, fully featured of its kind. Have you tried Android on an HTC yet? Yikes. A BB is a glorified e-mailer. WinMo is just nasty. For the iPhone, there truly is an app for nearly everything you might want to do. Not so for other platforms. And it doesn't look like it'll happen for the also-rans anytime soon.

Apple runs a walled garden. I'd still rather be a part of it than anything else, however. That isn't to say something GV-like won't come along by Apple or which will be aproved by Apple in the future, but for now, it's a sacrifice I can more than live with. And it looks like others can too. It mgiht be worth grumbling over, but it sure as hell isn't worth sacrificing Apple's strategy over. At all.

And GV was killed by AT&T. The Apple story was just a cover. It's all about money, and there was never much Apple could do about it to begin with. Things will change, but the change will come from increased competition between carriers (new carriers arriving on the scene, Canada will be an example over the next 6 months), and very little else.

[mccldwll]

What about the marketing aspect? :)
Everyone I know that has an iphone is buying one because they've seen it on tv or think that it's the 'in' thing to get - literally. They certainly haven't bought them for 'oh my the user experience is great'.
..

That's funny. Everyone I know who has an iPhone (and there are many) has one because of the power, ease of use and overall capablity of the device. Sounds to me like you have a lot of very shallow friends.

[KnightWRX]

I think the format is and has been preventing me from using my purchases. And copy protection probably would. It's a bit like booking a trip and receiving air miles. At least, that's how I feel.

AAC is a standard and well supported format. It's not locked to any particular vendor. You can also convert the music to mp3 without any problems (though converting a lossy format to another will affect quality).

Copy Protection is a thing of the past. You can remove it from any past purchases also, for a fee. Again, nothing locks you out of your music (and you knew about the DRM when you purchased it).

So again I ask, what prevents you from playing your music bought from iTunes on your Creative player ?

Gotta side with Apple on this one. Why would they want to approve an app that takes away from the phone core function?

Wait what ? Takes what away exactly ? The app, once installed, doesn't take away anything. You can still use your iPhone like you used it before installing it.

You get the added functionality of using Google Voice's voicemail/SMS/dialer if you wish to use it.

So your argument is flawed, as such, you side with Apple without even knowing what this is all about. You might want to rethink your position.

[BornAgainMac]

Copy Protection is a thing of the past. You can remove it from any past purchases also, for a fee.


What about the DRM for TV shows, audio books, music not upgradable by iTunes. I still have some albums and music that is available without DRM on the iTunes store but I still have not been given the option to upgrade those songs. Also some songs are no longer available on the iTunes store and I can't purchase the non DRM upgrade.

I wish Apple and Google can partner together to bring this App on the iPhone. They did good with the Google Maps.

[rockland]

I think the point here is not whether GV interferes with the OS. I think the point is that Apple lied about this matter, in a material way, and they just got caught.

The technical discussion is less the issue, as far as I can tell. If Phil tells Google one thing, and then tells the FCC another when the Commission starts snooping around, that's a problem.

We all love our iPhones and the user experience, and most of us hate AT&T. But who do you think selected AT&T as the exclusive carrier? Who do you think is carrying water for them now?

[kdarling]

Gotta side with Apple on this one. Why would they want to approve an app that takes away from the phone core function?

It doesn't take away anything. It adds more choice.

If you want to use Google voice then get an Android phone. You wouldn't walk into a BMW garage and ask for them to install the engine/internals of an Audi! :rolleyes:

Bad analogy. Changing the engine would be switching OS's or CPUs.

Adding apps is more like adding satellite radio to your current radio. Should BMW prevent you from doing that, because they believe their radio design and limitations take precedence over your desires?

Which has the been the attitude of MS designers and engineers for the last decade.

Nice handwaving. But allowing user apps has also been the "attitude" of Mac designers, as well. Replace all your "Windows" references with "Apple" and you simply define what people are used to having: free choice of third party apps.

Maintaining the User Experience has its price. But I'd rather sacrifice an app or two for it than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

THEN, GOOD GRIEF, JUST DON'T DOWNLOAD THE APP THAT OFFENDS YOU. How easy is that? D'oh! But why stop the rest of us who perhaps are a little more sophisticated in our needs?

User Experience is EVERYTHING. If you don't like it, there are other platforms to choose from.

Love it or leave it, eh? Fortunately, people who want more, are a major reason why we have onboard apps, not just "Jobs-sweet" web ones.

You're worried about the UX. That's fine. Apple can force Google to use certain UI look and feel guidelines. But claiming that users would get too confused by another choice that they downloaded on purpose? Wow.

And GV was killed by AT&T. The Apple story was just a cover. It's all about money, and there was never much Apple could do about it to begin with.

Agreed.

[*LTD*]

We all love our iPhones and the user experience, and most of us hate AT&T. But who do you think selected AT&T as the exclusive carrier? Who do you think is carrying water for them now?

This.

But really, would Verizon have not done the same thing?

It's a carrier issue. Not an Apple issue. Go with a small carrier and you've got capacity issues - they wouldn't be able to handle the network strain. Go with a large carrier and you're beholden to most of their whims.

It's not Apple's fault. There is no sense in blaming them. And Google seems to be the most ignorant of all, unless we choose to believe that they knew exactly what would happen, and knew it would turn out for their benefit. Pick your poison.

The issue is that Apple might have lied. The question is, if they hadn't, what would have done to their relationship with AT&T?

Tough call all around, folks.


But claiming that users would get too confused by another choice that they downloaded on purpose? Wow.



That claim might have also been part of the AT&T cover. If it was a lie, it seems it didn't get by everyone.

[MH01]

To spice up the site we should have the annual Fanboy awards. We could all nominate and then vote. Cool eh.

I would like to nominate LTD for

2009 Fanboy of the year
2009 Apple Apologist of the year

He really has gone beyond the call of duty this year, what a gutsy and professional performance. I challenge anyone to find a post in 2009 where LTD has said anything bad about Apple.

/clap

Till GV is on the App store, one can safely assume that its rejected. Truth is most of us do not care about GV nor will be even use it, its just we think that Apple has handled this situation in a really piss weak manner. If you going to reject it, just go ahead and do it, at least have the balls to do it.

[KnightWRX]

What about the DRM for TV shows, audio books, music not upgradable by iTunes. I still have some albums and music that is available without DRM on the iTunes store but I still have not been given the option to upgrade those songs. Also some songs are no longer available on the iTunes store and I can't purchase the non DRM upgrade.

You knew about the DRM when you made the purchase. I decided to stay away from DRM just for this reason. It has nothing to do with Piracy, it's all about controlling obsolescence for your media and forcing you to buy it again once a new format is needed.

I would buy tons of TV shows from iTunes if it wasn't for the DRM.

It's not Apple's fault. There is no sense in blaming them.

Why doesn't AT&T prevent users from installing Google Voice on their Blackberry phones if that is really the case ?

I doubt this is any of AT&T's doing. This is all Apple just being Apple. They have been control freaks with the iPhone since day one. The SDK never was supposed to exist, neither was the App Store.

Face it, Google Voice is available on other phones AT&T carries. It's available through the Web interface. It still uses your AT&T minutes for voice calling because it's not VOIP like some people think (it's only phone number aggregation). It still uses your data plan for SMS messaging and worse, it uses your data plan for Voicemail.

Why can't you admit Apple might be wrong ? Once. In. Your. Life. Just this once. We won't ask that you admit the same for when Apple said matte screens were gone. We won't ask either for when Apple said apps on the iPhone should be Web based. And we won't ask you to admit Apple was wrong for all those other times they did something, users whined, and they changed their minds.

Till GV is on the App store, one can safely assume that its rejected. Truth is most of us do not care about GV nor will be even use it, its just we think that Apple has handled this situation in a really piss weak manner. If you going to reject it, just go ahead and do it, at least have the balls to do it.

The good old "Chinese inspection". What movie was that from again ? Guy explains that when the chinese don't want a batch of letuce into the country, they let it sit on the docks for a couple of weeks until they are ready to inspect it. By then, it's rotten and has to be thrown out.

[hanpa]

Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. Jailbroken iPhones can run 3G Unrestrictor, which does just that, let you run Skype over 3G.

Yes, 3G Unrestrictor can be used for Skype calls over 3G cellular. Other examples:
- Using the built-in YouTube app with decent quality on 3G (same as on Wi-Fi) instead of the crappy quality that you get with the crippled app over 3G.
- Sync songs for off-line listening in Spotify also over 3G, otherwise restricted to Wi-Fi sync
- Sync files using various web based storage services, otherwise restricted to Wi-Fi (Don't know if this restriction will apply to the upcoming Dropbox app, hope not)

Just to be clear, I have not jailbroken my device yet. But I probably will if Apple doesn't change their policy. Not just for the 3G cellular restrictions but also for the possibility to run music applications like web radio or Spotify in the background to be able to keep listening at the same time as using apps like Mail, Safari, Maps etc. I've only used the iPod app once, the fact that this app can run in the background is of no use to me unless it's upgraded to support web radio like RadioBox and streaming on-demand music like Spotify.

[*LTD*]

Y

I doubt this is any of AT&T's doing. This is all Apple just being Apple. They have been control freaks with the iPhone since day one. The SDK never was supposed to exist, neither was the App Store.

Face it, Google Voice is available on other phones AT&T carries. It's available through the Web interface. It still uses your AT&T minutes for voice calling because it's not VOIP like some people think (it's only phone number aggregation). It still uses your data plan for SMS messaging and worse, it uses your data plan for Voicemail.

Take Apple out of the mix for a second.

Why do you think AT&T wanted to pull GV from the iPhone, and not other phones on its network?

AT&T doesn't have the ability to muscle RIM into blocking specific apps. In fact, I'm not even certain that apps can be blocked for Blackberry, correct me if I'm wrong. They do have that ability with the iPhone, which needs Apple's blessing for every app installed unless it's jailbroken (which voids warranty and risks being bricked by OS updates).

What motivation would Apple possibly have to block Google Voice on its own? It doesn't compete with any Apple product or service, and it would increase the value of the iPhone. If anything, Apple would want to encourage the development of an iPhone Google Voice app.

It's AT&T that is threatened.

AT&T lacks technical and/or legal means to prohibit Windows Mobile and Blackberry users from installing third party applications. AT&T can’t sue Google for offering a Blackberry app. All they can do is ban things in the terms of service, and pray people will obey. Apple has declared themselves gatekeeper for iTunes Store content, and that makes Apple responsible for its content. Apple and AT&T have agreements in place. Through those agreements, AT&T gains a level of control over third party applications they don’t enjoy with the other handsets. Had Apple gone with Verizon instead, we'd be likely be seeing the exact same thing.

And really, The iPhone has hit AT&T in numbers it can’t handle, and AT&T must be in a terrible love/hate relationship over it with both Apple and the consumers who have the iPhone. BB users are more likely business users and therefore less likely to jack around with apps like slingplayer or google voice. Consumer type iPhone users are far more likely to suck up data with these apps, and far more likely to drop expensive SMS services and replace them. Business users won’t hassle with it, or will be prevented by corporate IT policy.

Makes plenty sense for AT&T to treat iPhone differently than other phones. AT&T holds the iPhone to a different set of standards and rules than other devices on its network.

The iPhone, in terms of network strain, data usage, and consumer usage habits, is unprecedented. It will overtake RIM. It's only a matter of time, and it'll happen sooner than we think. That will be an entirely unique strain on the major carriers, both financially and in terms of capacity. AT&T, at least in this case, saw the writing on the wall, and it did the most prudent thing in terms of it preparedness (or lack thereof.) They put a stop to GV.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Yes. If the iPhone was just an old-fashioned phone with a few built-in applications, the comparison with BMW would apply. But a BMW does not offer a platform for executing general-purpuse applications.

Though BMW does allow and in many parts contribute to aftermarket add ons such as those by Hamann and AC Schnitzer.

[kdarling]

Okay, so the FCC proposed two new guidelines.

List of guidelines here (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=24593).

WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125354032776727741.html) hints that carriers might have to charge differently for people who use more.

Sounds fair, although iPhone YouTube junkies and WM Pandora lovers would have a fit.

[KnightWRX]

Take Apple out of the mix for a second.

Why do you think AT&T wanted to pull GV from the iPhone, and not other phones on its network?

AT&T doesn't have the ability to muscle RIM into blocking specific apps. In fact, I'm not even certain that apps can be blocked for Blackberry, correct me if I'm wrong. They do have that ability with the iPhone, which needs Apple's blessing for every app installed unless it's jailbroken (which voids warranty and risks being bricked by OS updates).

What motivation would Apple possibly have to block Google Voice on its own? It doesn't compete with any Apple product or service, and it would increase the value of the iPhone. If anything, Apple would want to encourage the development of an iPhone Google Voice app.

It's AT&T that is threatened.

AT&T lacks technical and/or legal means to prohibit Windows Mobile and Blackberry users from installing third party applications. AT&T can’t sue Google for offering a Blackberry app. All they can do is ban things in the terms of service, and pray people will obey. Apple has declared themselves gatekeeper for iTunes Store content, and that makes Apple responsible for its content. Apple and AT&T have agreements in place. Through those agreements, AT&T gains a level of control over third party applications they don’t enjoy with the other handsets. Had Apple gone with Verizon instead, we'd be likely be seeing the exact same thing.

And really, The iPhone has hit AT&T in numbers it can’t handle, and AT&T must be in a terrible love/hate relationship over it with both Apple and the consumers who have the iPhone. BB users are more likely business users and therefore less likely to jack around with apps like slingplayer or google voice. Consumer type iPhone users are far more likely to suck up data with these apps, and far more likely to drop expensive SMS services and replace them. Business users won’t hassle with it, or will be prevented by corporate IT policy.

Makes plenty sense for AT&T to treat iPhone differently than other phones. AT&T holds the iPhone to a different set of standards and rules than other devices on its network.

The iPhone, in terms of network strain, data usage, and consumer usage habits, is unprecedented. It will overtake RIM. It's only a matter of time, and it'll happen sooner than we think. That will be an entirely unique strain on the major carriers, both financially and in terms of capacity. AT&T, at least in this case, saw the writing on the wall, and it did the most prudent thing in terms of it preparedness (or lack thereof.) They put a stop to GV.

Wow, you really can't admit Apple might be wrong here. You'd rather call them liars and slaves to AT&T than admit they might have made a mistake.

If AT&T can only block Google Voice on the iPhone, what good is it doing them ? They have Windows Mobile phones, they have Blackberry phones, they have tons of other phones capable of running Google Voice. And no, Blackberry is not limited to business types anymore. I see tons of kids running around with cheapo Pearl Flips and Storms.

AT&T has nothing to gain from just blocking the service on the iPhone and doing so might drive a few potential iPhone customers away from their expensive data plans. Hate the iPhone because of the increased business ? I very very much doubt it.

And it's not like Apple has never, ever made mistakes. They make mistakes often. They are slowly opening up the iPhone more and more. It shows that they realise that they can't continue keeping it closed forever. This is a mistep.

What would you say if tomorrow, Apple decided to allow the Google Voice app ? To open the App Store to unapproved apps, in a special section ? Would you admit their mistake then ?

[outphase]

To spice up the site we should have the annual Fanboy awards. We could all nominate and then vote. Cool eh.

I would like to nominate LTD for

2009 Fanboy of the year
2009 Apple Apologist of the year

He really has gone beyond the call of duty this year, what a gutsy and professional performance. I challenge anyone to find a post in 2009 where LTD has said anything bad about Apple.

/clap

Till GV is on the App store, one can safely assume that its rejected. Truth is most of us do not care about GV nor will be even use it, its just we think that Apple has handled this situation in a really piss weak manner. If you going to reject it, just go ahead and do it, at least have the balls to do it.
For claiming not to care, *LTD* has been doing a big amount of it.

[*LTD*]

Wow, you really can't admit Apple might be wrong here. You'd rather call them liars and slaves to AT&T than admit they might have made a mistake.

What would you say if tomorrow, Apple decided to allow the Google Voice app ? To open the App Store to unapproved apps, in a special section ? Would you admit their mistake then ?

I wouldn't admit to something I don't believe.

As to your second question:

It might happen sometime in the future. But that certainly doesn't mean they were "wrong" up until then. And if they never release it, and never do what you propose and still succeed as well as they do now, does that make me wrong? Does it really make them wrong?

Does the fact that the vast majority don't care about this issue, yet you do, make you right? Does that make those who don't care wrong?

Tough call all around.

Clearly, Apple is doing most things right with the iPhone. There are a few niggles here and there, but in terms of the big picture, they're minor. If you and others wish to treat them as something more and go on and on for pages and pages, that's entirely up to you.

[seedster2]

To spice up the site we should have the annual Fanboy awards. We could all nominate and then vote. Cool eh.

I would like to nominate LTD for

2009 Fanboy of the year
2009 Apple Apologist of the year

He really has gone beyond the call of duty this year, what a gutsy and professional performance. I challenge anyone to find a post in 2009 where LTD has said anything bad about Apple.

Seriously, if anything he's entertaining. No matter how one sided the scenario, you can always open a thread where he will find a way to protect apple and absolve them of blame


It's a carrier issue. Not an Apple issue. Go with a small carrier and you've got capacity issues - they wouldn't be able to handle the network strain. Go with a large carrier and you're beholden to most of their whims.

It's not Apple's fault. There is no sense in blaming them. And Google seems to be the most ignorant of all, unless we choose to believe that they knew exactly what would happen, and knew it would turn out for their benefit. Pick your poison.

That claim might have also been part of the AT&T cover. If it was a lie, it seems it didn't get by everyone.

This quixotic adventure is fascinating except for the small detail that AT&T allows the application on other platforms. All the available evidence contradicts your zany AT&T responsibility theory. You repeatedly emphasize Apple's need to control UI and other facets of the iphone and now you're saying that their reasoning is merely a lie to protect AT&T. What incentive do they have to protect them? AT&T would still want the phone regardless of the investigations outcome. Until more is uncovered I think your hypothesis sounds far fetched.

Even if your tale was remotely factual, Apple and AT&T should be penalized for collusion. Which you appear to have no problem with, which seems to align with your usual position on apple (they can't do wrong, they're wildly successful, issue doesnt matter to the majority, apple hasnt included it so its not necessary, I never had a problem so it doesnt exist, dont buy it then, etc)

[KnightWRX]

Does the fact that the vast majority don't care about this issue, yet you do, make you right? Does that make those who don't care wrong?

Tough call all around.

Clearly, Apple is doing most things right with the iPhone. There are a few niggles here and there, but in terms of the big picture, they're minor. If you and others wish to treat them as something more and go on and on for pages and pages, that's entirely up to you.

For someone who doesn't care, you sure go on and on about how Apple is right and that AT&T is the responsible party and that Apple never made any mistakes, and that any change in attitude is just because "now is the time, before it wasn't".

And for something minor, it sure has gotten a lot of media attention. Newsweek's bloggers have a fun little article that seems just right for you too :

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonicshifts/archive/2009/09/21/apple-s-reality-distortion-field-has-stopped-working.aspx

Apple's "reality distortion field" has stopped working

How else to explain the latest cartoon from the guys at Joy of Tech? Nobody -- not even hardcore fanboys -- is willing to believe that Apple was telling the truth when it told the FCC that it had not rejected Google Voice from the App Store, and was just taking a long time to study the issue. Google fired back and released a copy of the letter that it sent to the FCC, in which Google claims that Apple clearly did reject Google Voice. Michael Arrington of TechCrunch says he's heard Google has a screen shot of the actual rejection notice and will be ready to "nuke" Apple with it. Apple continues to stand by its story and insist it never rejected Google's application. From the looks of the cartoon above, I'd say Apple is not convincing many people. That in itself is kind of newsworthy. In the past, when Apple told a whopper, fanboy journalists wrote it off with a chuckle as another example of the "reality distortion field." Now they're holding Apple's feet to the fire. Interesting.

Ouch. Minor indeed.

[hoosierfan24]

I am not surprised either

[CylonGlitch]

Copy Protection is a thing of the past. You can remove it from any past purchases also, for a fee. Again, nothing locks you out of your music (and you knew about the DRM when you purchased it).


Could you please PM me the directions on how to do this, if I try to do it through iTunes it says I have to upgrade them all to iTunes Plus for $0.20 each or something like that.

[ViViDboarder]

Could you please PM me the directions on how to do this, if I try to do it through iTunes it says I have to upgrade them all to iTunes Plus for $0.20 each or something like that.

Yea... That's the fee.

OR... You can just burn all your DRM music to a CD-RW and then rip it back to your library DRM free. :D

Erase and repeat. :D

[D4F]

Cheap a$$ Apple.
Nothing new.
I use google voice A LOT with my G1. $0.02 per minute to Europe.

[kernkraft]

Which has the been the attitude of MS designers and engineers for the last decade.

What has Microsoft anything to do with this? I am talking about Apple and they deny a basic consumer choice from me. I don't think your argument is anywhere deep as the ones I called shallow.


Maintaining the User Experience has its price. But I'd rather sacrifice an app or two for it than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

OK, here the price is that you cannot do something that it would be natural for everybody else. I don't get the baby-bathwater analogy. Not allowing a few app is also not the same as sacrificing them.



The whole point is that Apple designs and controls the user experience. That's the hook. That's one of the keys to their success. Hence, the iPhone. You're describing a Windows-centric situation, which is the last thing anyone needs. And judging by the success of the iPhone so far, Apple's strategy is working out beautfully.

Are you getting paid by Apple? What 'user experience' is not to have an alternative that is cheaper than what Apple is forcing upon you? Do you get the freedom to reject it if it's crap? Nope. Apple wanted to decide that it is not good for them, hence it is not good for the customer. Guess, what - I, a customer think differently.

That whole Windows-idea is completely unnecessary. You don't have to be so blinded to justify anything on the ground that Apple is different from Microsoft. I think the whole 'Apple-n@@@' idea originates from the fact, that some sad people think it is a black and white situation. No, it's not. It's not WW2! The Jedi can make mistakes too, young Skywalker.


I'd rather Apple take the User Experience paradigm too far than start to erode it little by little. That ish starts to add up over time.

So you admit that the whole shallow 'user experience' phenomenon is just a paradigm? It seems, Apple is taking its own model too rigidly. Ironically, the company with the cool and relaxed image should employ a bit more creativity to realise that real life is not always about their clinical world and pre-defined solutions. Freedom can be good, you know. Sometimes, maybe sometimes, their customers can be treated as individuals, who can decide if they don't like something.


It's a single app out of 70,000+ apps. Get over it. It might be worth asking for, but it's in no way, shape or form worth altering Apple's core strategy.

Google is just a single company out of millions. Apple is just another single IT company out of tens of thousands.

Precedents are set by individual cases. Making the incident look irrelevant is just not solving the problem.

Apple's App Store and iTunes are by far the market leaders in what they do, just like Microsoft was at the time when their inclusion of one single browser of their own was severely penalised by the European Commission. If the present incident was something to play down, relevant departments would not be worried about what happened, when, who said what and so on. 'Federal Communications Commission' and 'investigation' sound pretty serious to me. Apple can be fined here. Personally, I hope they will be. Not because I hate Apple. Because I hate this behaviour, from ANY company. I think that is the main difference between us.

About the 70.000+... well, I could happily part from 70.000 for this one. I am using a dozen, not more. But Google's application would definitely make it on my list. I leave the fart generators and hot teens for those, who want to take 'user experience to the next level'.


User Experience is EVERYTHING.
And Jedis are always right. What do you want to do next, Anakin? Building an Apple Star? Starting terminating those, not seeing how perfect Apple is in every situation? The 'n' word would be in place.

[KnightWRX]

There's no reasoning with *LTD*. Better to ignore him like he ignores the most important word in "user experience" (and no, it's not experience).

[electroshock]

There's a price to pay for the "Apple experience." Always has been. Total openness and transparency is not one of the ideals (and never was) that are high on Apple's list or priorities. It's a closed system. But one that manages to be far, far more attractive and usable than all the others out there.

Just wanted to point out that your assertion that the Apple experience never was open is not quite correct. For most of Apple's first decade, they went as far as publishing circuit schematics and firmware listings -- I have one such manual. A big part of that was due to Steve Wozniak's philosophy. But that changed prominently with the Steve Jobs era (who strongly favored a closed design and a more tightly controlled user experience), especially with the Macintosh.

I have no real opinion yet on the AAPL vs. GOOG issue, but would guess Apple's probably legally in the clear on the various fronts and likely would survive any regulatory scrutiny.

[*LTD*]

There's no reasoning with *LTD*. Better to ignore him like he ignores the most important word in "user experience" (and no, it's not experience).

Then you'd better tell the USERS to stop buying Macs in record numbers (not to mention iPods, iPhones etc.), in a recession, especially when there are cheaper Windows-based options out there that apparently offer greater "value" . . . Except for a lot of people ready to spend $1000+. Even though they are actively, willfully, deliberately choosing Apple and continue to do so. Of course, the mountains of customer satisfaction surveys over the years, Macs selling in record numbers, and general peerless desirability of Apple tech isn't based on the "user experience", right?

Want to talk "user"? Apple is the most user-centric tech company on the planet today. But that aint me talking. It's the consumer. It's facts. But I guess it's all a shadowy lie, or a Grand Deception, and it's something else entirely. The only "real" consumers - the ones whose opinion is worth anything, is hanging out on MR, right?

I choose to ignore GV as a major issue with respect to User Experience, because in the grand scheme of what Apple offers in terms of the User Experience, it counts for almost nothing.

I draw my info from the facts we get from Apple's market base - what we know about customer satisfaction, quarterly reports, company performance, user surveys that are readily available around the web, things like this:

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/22467/

. . . and similar information. And this is available from a wide variety of sources, going back to at least 2006.

What are you doing? Where are you pulling your information from? A segment of an already small segment: members of Mac forums. Already a rather obscure bunch, made even smaller because not everyone even amongst yourselves agrees with you.

So when it comes to User Experience, on the one hand you've got FACTS. And on the other hand you've got the personal opinion of about 20 or so MR members (far fewer on AI, by the way), and probably the same number on other Apple fansites, with a few tech journalists who live on the ass-end of the web.

So really, who's more in touch - in fact, let me correct that - who is the better authority to discuss "User Experience" as it relates to Apple. You? Or the FACTS, compiled over the course of several years?

Again, you're confining your concerns to the context of GV. Well, don't. Because GV is an infinitesimal fragment compared to the the reality of the big picture.

And this FCC involvement might very well be a double-edged sword: it's all fun and games until GV is subject to common carrier rules. With Google Voice, Google is looking to be a free rider on the carriers' networks while syphoning off their revenues.

So, please, by all means continue to advise everyone who to ignore and who to listen to. Since you speak for everyone here. Which doesn't bother me, because most of your opinions about Apple (and many others here) are completely divergent from reality.

[KnightWRX]

Then you'd better tell the USERS to stop buying Macs in record numbers (not to mention iPods, iPhones etc.), in a recession, especially when there are cheaper Windows-based options out there that apparently offer greater "value" . . .

Why do you contradict yourself, AGAIN ? You said the iPhone and Macs weren't the same beasts. I have no restrictions on my Mac. I installed Macports, and I use tons of Free software on it, and I use tons of 3rd party software, none specifically approved by Apple.

These are all points you said made the Mac a different platform. So why bring it unto the table now ?

Again, the problem with the iPhone is not the device or the OS. It's apple's control. This will impact some users more than others as Apple dictates the Experience, rather than the user dictating the experience.

Face it, some users do have needs that are well met by the iPhone's current ecosystem, while others require a bit more openess. In the end, if you want to claim Apple is trying to garantee a User Experience, this is not it.

This is the Apple Experience. And eventually, this will hurt them. If the Mac had such a closed ecosystem, it wouldn't be where it is today. The Mac thrived on 3rd party software since it's inception, and it's these 3rd parties that made the platform great (Adobe comes to mind).

[*LTD*]

Why do you contradict yourself, AGAIN ? You said the iPhone and Macs weren't the same beasts. I have no restrictions on my Mac. I installed Macports, and I use tons of Free software on it, and I use tons of 3rd party software, none specifically approved by Apple.

These are all points you said made the Mac a different platform. So why bring it unto the table now ?

Again, the problem with the iPhone is not the device or the OS. It's apple's control. This will impact some users more than others as Apple dictates the Experience, rather than the user dictating the experience.

Face it, some users do have needs that are well met by the iPhone's current ecosystem, while others require a bit more openess. In the end, if you want to claim Apple is trying to garantee a User Experience, this is not it.

This is the Apple Experience. And eventually, this will hurt them. If the Mac had such a closed ecosystem, it wouldn't be where it is today. The Mac thrived on 3rd party software since it's inception, and it's these 3rd parties that made the platform great (Adobe comes to mind).

Apple's control is the exact reason for the iPhone's success.

This is the Apple Experience. And eventually, this will hurt them

Let us know when this "eventually, this wil hurt them" fluff is actually going to happen. Because Apple's numbers certainly don't support it, and they're on track to yet again sell a record number of iPhones. We're not seeing developers flocking to any other platform, and by the looks of it, we won't be seeing that anytime soon.

Again, your comments have no acutal basis in reality.

http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/picture-31.png?w=497&h=196

Market Share Change (Absolute)
Apple 10.5%
HTC 1.9%
RIM 1.4%
Fujitsu -0.3%
Nokia -2.0%
Others -11.2%

Big losers = Windows, Palm


Wow, you really can't admit Apple might be wrong here. You'd rather call them liars and slaves to AT&T than admit they might have made a mistake.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/09/22/att_weighs_in_against_net_neutrality_for_wireless_networks.html

AT&T's role is becoming clearer by the day. I'll bet Verizon will be next to oppose, if they haven't already done so.

[KnightWRX]

Apple's control is the exact reason for the iPhone's success.

I doubt Apple's control is the reason of the iPhone's success. The reason for the iPhone's success is the fact that it brought Smartphones to the masses. It integrated the PDA with the PMP with the cellphone, in a package not destined to businesses. That was the initial launch.

Then the App Store came. An easy way to obtain games and applications for a platform where such things weren't easy before or were fragmented and under the control service providers. You wanted X game, well, Rogers didn't offer it for their phones, only Bell or Telus, even though they had the CDMA versions of the same device you had. That was the 2nd step of their success.

Now we're here. People are whining, developers are getting edgy and looking at other, newer platforms, with less restrictions. Everyone is jumping on the Android bandwagon and this fall will see an explosion of such devices. Everyone is gearing up their centralised stores or marketplaces, some way more open than Apple.

Nokia is still market leader after 2 years of Apple being on the market. They are still a distant 3rd after RIM, and their phenomal growth is only because they weren't even in the market before. It's easy to have 300% growth when going from 0.1% market share to 0.3% (extreme exemple, but you get the point).

Nokia and RIM won't exhibit the same growth as Apple because they are already well established. Once Apple is too, you will see more normal growth or decline, depending on how the iPhone is doing.

The grumbling is just starting. Google Voice is the first high visilibity reject, but there have been many other stories. If this keeps up, you will see developers abandonning the platform. Some are already not even looking at the iPhone because of this.

If you want to deny it, and you want to think that Apple's success up to now was all because of this supposed control, and not just some buying frenzy into a new trendy device, then fine. But the day that Apple opens up their approval process and makes it more accessible and open to everyone in order to appease the growing resentment people are feeling towards the iPhone, is the day I will post a big bold : I TOLD YOU SO *LTD*. And no amount of you trying to say that they were right all along and are still right is going to change that.

[*LTD*]

People are whining, developers are getting edgy and looking at other, newer platforms, with less restrictions. Everyone is jumping on the Android bandwagon and this fall will see an explosion of such devices. Everyone is gearing up their centralised stores or marketplaces, some way more open than Apple.

Who's whining? People on Apple fansites? Because that's pretty much the crowd that's actually noticed the GV-FCC-alleged developer grumbling phenomenon, and actually cares enough to talk about it.

All these developers getting ready to jump ship? Again, we're hearing about this so-called Android explosion. Yet today, Android software feels like a beta. Android is nowhere at the moment, but oh wait, you'll see, come this fall it'll all change!

As long as the iPhone continues to sell in record numbers (and by the looks of it, it will), developers are staying put. These also-rans hardly have OSes that are mature enough, never mind scant, small app stores that seem to remain stifled. While Apple is already on its 3rd gen iPhone with a booming App Store. Currently, the iPhone is unstoppable. Period. With he existence of the iPhone, you can't market anything else in an appreciable way.

The iPhone "trend" is beginning to look exactly like the iPod "trend." The competition has a very limited window of opportunity to get its act together before there's no point in staying in the game at all.

When this "grumbling" and the like translates into real, material numbers, then you can say "I told you so." But right now you're just blowing expanded and elaborated "I can't use GV so the iPhone is doomed" smoke.

[ViViDboarder]

Who's whining? People on Apple fansites? Because that's pretty much the crowd that's actually noticed the GV-FCC-alleged developer grumbling phenomenon, and actually cares enough to talk about it.

All these developers getting ready to jump ship? Again, we're hearing about this so-called Android explosion. Yet today, Android software feels like a beta. Android is nowhere at the moment, but oh wait, you'll see, come this fall it'll all change!

As long as the iPhone continues to sell in record numbers (and by the looks of it, it will), developers are staying put. These also-rans hardly have OSes that are mature enough, never mind scant, small app stores that seem to remain stifled. While Apple is already on its 3rd gen iPhone with a booming App Store. Currently, the iPhone is unstoppable. Period. With he existence of the iPhone, you can't market anything else in an appreciable way.

The iPhone "trend" is beginning to look exactly like the iPod "trend." The competition has a very limited window of opportunity to get its act together before there's no point in staying in the game at all.

When this "grumbling" and the like translates into real, material numbers, then you can say "I told you so." But right now you're just blowing expanded and elaborated "I can't use GV so the iPhone is doomed" smoke.

Umm... The iPhone is not even close to what the iPod was for MP3 players...

The iPod is pretty much a standard now and a brand name. I've heard people call other mp3 players iPods because that's all they know. The iPod came out just as MP3 players were springing up!

The iPhone is out after cellphones and smartphones have been around for years. It's no major breakthrough. They don't even have a huge marketshare. They compete with Blackberry and Android phones but Apple doesn't even have close to an edge on the market. They have not revolutionized phones.

For years people have been able to download Apps to smartphones, Apple just decided to appeal to more developers. You'll very quickly see this trend across more phone platforms and it's already beginning.

I like my iPhone 3G but I'm not sold on the iPhone for life. I'd like to see what the next gen is from every major player in this industry because everyone has the potential to have the next greatest phone. Not just Apple.

[KnightWRX]

Who's whining? People on Apple fansites? Because that's pretty much the crowd that's actually noticed the GV-FCC-alleged developer grumbling phenomenon, and actually cares enough to talk about it.

Maybe if you'd actually bother to read something else than Apple fansites you'd see. This has been all over the news, this has been on business related sites, financial sites.

Other people than just geeks are getting PO'd at this. I've seen it first hand from people around me. They aren't geeks, they don't hang out on Apple fansites. They are tired of the control and they believe that they should do what they want with a device they bought.

All these developers getting ready to jump ship? Again, we're hearing about this so-called Android explosion. Yet today, Android software feels like a beta. Android is nowhere at the moment, but oh wait, you'll see, come this fall it'll all change!

Android feels like Beta ? You haven't used Android much have you ? Android is just fine. Not only that, Android is ahead of iPhone as far as tethering goes (they had since day 1, before iPhone OS 3.0) and for Augmented Reality apps (again, day 1, iPhone OS 3.1 just brings this to the table). Apple is playing catch up because of many of the features of Android.

The problem has been device availability. Motorola has just jumped onto the bandwagon with Samsung in the last few weeks. LG is coming up with a device soon, Sony Ericsson also.

So you can try to ridicule Android all you want, it just shows your ignorance. When people say Android is coming this fall, it's because the press releases are out, and the availability dates are set.

Oh and just one thing. If you're still doubting, here's the SE phone, complete with 5 MP camera, 800x480 screen, 1 GHZ Qualcomm snapdragon processor :

http://phandroid.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/xperia-x3-render8.jpg

[polaris20]

Let us know when this "eventually, this wil hurt them" fluff is actually going to happen

It's already happened once, in the 80's, remember? When Windows got a huge market share because Apple controlled everything, and didn't license out their OS like MS?

Apple's total control of their platform is a blessing and a curse.

Who's whining? People on Apple fansites? Because that's pretty much the crowd that's actually noticed the GV-FCC-alleged developer grumbling phenomenon, and actually cares enough to talk about it.


You're not serious, are you? Do you read other tech-related sites other than Apple fan sites?



Oh and just one thing. If you're still doubting, here's the SE phone, complete with 5 MP camera, 800x480 screen, 1 GHZ Qualcomm snapdragon processor :

http://phandroid.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/xperia-x3-render8.jpg

Ouch, that looks hot. Any idea what carrier it'll be on? I need a new phone to replace my Crapberry Curve.

[ViViDboarder]

It's already happened once, in the 80's, remember? When Windows got a huge market share because Apple controlled everything, and didn't license out their OS like MS?

Apple's total control of their platform is a blessing and a curse.

Great point! I almost forgot about that.

It is the "Apple" way though. :p Like people said many times before, the 1984 ad has new meaning...

This is part of their image though. The fact that they are so controlling of their devices add to the "exclusivity" of their products.
Only get OSX on a Mac.
Only get OSX Touch on an iPhone/iTouch.
Only get to use the Apps that we want you to use.
It's a control game and while the first two have ended up creating a demand for Apple, the last I don't think is going to be received in the same way.

[*LTD*]

It's no major breakthrough. They have not revolutionized phones.

Which is why everyone and their dog in the industry is scrambling to follow Apple.

Apple changed the entire mobile handset game overnight. Nearly all the handset tech you see out there today - capacitive touch screen, apps, etc., is due to what Apple did in 2007.

Remember what the world was like before Apple introduced the iPhone:


Phones were reduced to cheap, disposable lures for carriers’ service contracts

There was no revenue sharing between carriers and manufacturers

There was no notion of phone networks becoming dumb pipes anytime soon

Affordable, unlimited data plans as standard were unheard of

A phone that would entice people to switch networks by the millions was a pipe dream

Mobile devices were phones first and last, not usable handheld computers

Even the smartest phones didn’t have seamless WiFi integration

Without Visual Voice Mail, messages couldn’t be managed non-linearly

There were no manufacturer owned and operated on-the-phone application stores as the sole source

An on-the-phone store having 65,000 apps downloaded nearly 2 billion times was not on anyone’s radar screen

Low-cost, high-volume app pricing strategy with a 70/30 split didn’t exist

Robust one-click in-app transactions were unknown

There was no efficient, large scale, consistent and lucrative mobile app market for developers large and small

Buttons, keys, joysticks, sliders…anything but the screen was the focus of phones

Phones didn’t come with huge 3.5″ touch screens

Pervasive multitouch, gesture-based UI was science fiction

Actually usable, multi-language, multitouch virtual keyboards on phones didn’t exist

Integrated sensors like accelerometers and proximity detectors had no place in phones

Phones could never compete in 3D/gaming with dedicated portable consoles

iPod-class audio/video players on mobiles didn’t exist

No phone had ever offered a desktop-like web browser experience

Sophisticated SDKs and phones were strangers to each other


And on and on.

It’s sobering to remember that a single device by a company with zero experience in the industry and against all odds caused such a tidal wave of change.

Change didn’t come because of Nokia, Microsoft, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, RIM or any other player in the market for the past 15 years. Android and webOS weren’t there before the iPhone.

Revolution? That's putting it mildly.

[KnightWRX]

Ouch, that looks hot. Any idea what carrier it'll be on? I need a new phone to replace my Crapberry Curve.

Official announcement and release for the Sony Ericsson is only supposed to be in January, though there are more and more leaks of it.

For now, we have to make do with Motorola, Samsung, LG and HTC... all very minor players compared to Apple :rolleyes:.

Which is why everyone and their dog in the industry is scrambling to follow Apple.

They are ? Who's this everyone ? Because I see a few players on board, a distant 3rd place marketshare, and very little big name developers besides EA. On the hardware side, the real players of the cellphone industry, well Apple is alone there. Carriers ? Nada, because Apple is too tight on its control.

But on the other hand, Android is now on devices from 4 major hardware players with more to come. There's rumors of Dell and Sony Ericsson coming onboard with the platform. It will be China's official smartphone, available on all 3 major carriers there. It will soon be on 3 of the top 4 carriers in the US (Sprint just announced the Sprint HTC Hero available in October, Verizon is getting the HTC Predator). There are now Internet Tablets (from Archos) coming with Android as the OS installed, so it's going beyond cellphones.

And finally, Android is now in the same position Apple was in 2007, they just launched, and they're getting crazy media attention. We'll see in 2 years if it destroyed the iPhone's growth or not. My bet is that it'll detrone RIM and the blackberry before the iPhone does.

[ViViDboarder]

Which is why everyone and their dog in the industry is scrambling to follow Apple.

Apple changed the entire mobile handset game overnight. Nearly all the handset tech you see out there today - capacitive touch screen, apps, etc., is due to what Apple did in 2007.

Remember what the world was like before Apple introduced the iPhone:


Phones were reduced to cheap, disposable lures for carriers’ service contracts

There was no revenue sharing between carriers and manufacturers

There was no notion of phone networks becoming dumb pipes anytime soon

Affordable, unlimited data plans as standard were unheard of

A phone that would entice people to switch networks by the millions was a pipe dream

Mobile devices were phones first and last, not usable handheld computers

Even the smartest phones didn’t have seamless WiFi integration

Without Visual Voice Mail, messages couldn’t be managed non-linearly

There were no manufacturer owned and operated on-the-phone application stores as the sole source

An on-the-phone store having 65,000 apps downloaded nearly 2 billion times was not on anyone’s radar screen

Low-cost, high-volume app pricing strategy with a 70/30 split didn’t exist

Robust one-click in-app transactions were unknown

There was no efficient, large scale, consistent and lucrative mobile app market for developers large and small

Buttons, keys, joysticks, sliders…anything but the screen was the focus of phones

Phones didn’t come with huge 3.5″ touch screens

Pervasive multitouch, gesture-based UI was science fiction

Actually usable, multi-language, multitouch virtual keyboards on phones didn’t exist

Integrated sensors like accelerometers and proximity detectors had no place in phones

Phones could never compete in 3D/gaming with dedicated portable consoles

iPod-class audio/video players on mobiles didn’t exist

No phone had ever offered a desktop-like web browser experience

Sophisticated SDKs and phones were strangers to each other


And on and on.

It’s sobering to remember that a single device by a company with zero experience in the industry and against all odds caused such a tidal wave of change.

Change didn’t come because of Nokia, Microsoft, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, RIM or any other player in the market for the past 15 years. Android and webOS weren’t there before the iPhone.

Revolution? That's putting it mildly.

Can we get this guy a metal for biggest fanboy? Haha

Wow... Ok...

I'm not denying that the iPhone is a great phone and was awesome when it and the 3G came out, but some of your arguements don't even show breakthroughs in the industry or are just wrong.

How long has Blackberry/RIM been around? Phones have been around that have played music for a long while. In fact, my old LG Fusic even supported A2DP and FM Broadcast (for using in car or whatever) back when it first came out.


iPhone IS just a lure for AT&T contracts right now
Revenue sharing doesn't effect the consumer so I don't care
Where people want data, people will be offered it.
Wifi wasn't that big of a deal because people didn't demand such high speeds on their phones
Visual Voicemail is a convenience but far from a game-changer. Many companies still, intentionally leave it out.
The fact that the Manufacturer owns and runs the app store as a SOLE SOURCE is a huge NEGATIVE (Thank you Saurik for Cydia). Consumer choice always benefits the consumer
There was no lucrative market for software developers on the phone. True. But that's changing now due to the way people now, yes thanks to Apple, look at Smartphones.
Touchscreen isn't a positive for everyone. Many people still want a device with physical buttons. Having no physical buttons makes it hard to work without seeing the device.
Accelerometers in cell phones are neat... I'll leave it at that. Still many phones leave it out intentionally because it's not that big a deal.
The desktop browsing experience is the greatest innovation of the iPhone in generally. This lead to the demand of data and the aforementioned points you made.
There are SDK's for other phones and it's arguable that the iPhone one is worse because it's limited to development with Xcode and on a Mac only while others work with different IDE's and multiple platforms.


Like I said... I like my iPhone... I like hacking my iPhone... But it's a PHONE.

[KnightWRX]

Can we get this guy a metal for biggest fanboy? Haha

Wow... Ok...

I'm not denying that the iPhone is a great phone and was awesome when it and the 3G came out, but some of your arguements don't even show breakthroughs in the industry or are just wrong.

How long has Blackberry/RIM been around? Phones have been around that have played music for a long while. In fact, my old LG Fusic even supported A2DP and FM Broadcast (for using in car or whatever) back when it first came out.

Heck, his "Zero Experience" in the industry comment just shows how detached he is. Apple had dabbled in the cellphone industry before, to launch a Phone, a iPod without the Internet Device :

http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/07/the-motorola-rokr-e1-apple-itunes-phone/

http://img.engadget.com/common/images/0524319320818418.JPG?0.05197641195151115

Wow, the link even goes to Apple's page. Let's use the wayback machine to refresh our memories (and *LTD*'s) :

http://web.archive.org/web/20051001072038/http://www.apple.com/itunes/mobile/

Well would you look at that, the first ever iTunes phone, right there on Apple.com, and it's not an iPhone. Wow, it's even on Cingular, which is now AT&T's mobile division. Let's no forget the initial iPhone announcement was pre-merger and was slated for release on Cingular, so the iPhone wasn't even their first venture with AT&T!

For a company with zero experience, they sure had a lot to do with this project that was the foundation for the iPhone.

There are SDK's for other phones and it's arguable that the iPhone one is worse because it's limited to development with Xcode and on a Mac only while others work with different IDE's and multiple platforms.

I first dabbled in mobile developement in 2003, with NetBeans and the J2ME SDK. Downloaded the J2ME extensions SDK and a phone emulator from Sony Ericsson to support my phone.

In 2007, when Apple launched the iPhone, they didn't even want to release a SDK. So no, they didn't create anything new or exciting, they just followed a trend that had been building for years, and it took a few developers whining to get it too. So Apple does try to please developers by listening to them...

[Mattie Num Nums]

I wouldn't admit to something I don't believe.


Thats because its pretty obvious by all your posts that Apple is never wrong and its always Microsoft being Evil, or AT&T forcing Apple to take the blame like George McFly. I'm sorry I don't think Steve Jobs has taken the blame for anything regardless of the money. To Steve, Steve is #1, Money is #2, Bono is #3, and we the customers don't even make the list.

Oh yeah LTD here is a non Apple Tech site:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090918-707896.html

This GV rejection is big. It is two multi billion dollar power houses fighting and this can have serious implications on the stock prices for Apple who has notoriously had rollercoaster stocks based on Steve Jobs getting pimples.

Official announcement and release for the Sony Ericsson is only supposed to be in January, though there are more and more leaks of it.

For now, we have to make do with Motorola, Samsung, LG and HTC... all very minor players compared to Apple :rolleyes:.



They are ? Who's this everyone ? Because I see a few players on board, a distant 3rd place marketshare, and very little big name developers besides EA. On the hardware side, the real players of the cellphone industry, well Apple is alone there. Carriers ? Nada, because Apple is too tight on its control.

But on the other hand, Android is now on devices from 4 major hardware players with more to come. There's rumors of Dell and Sony Ericsson coming onboard with the platform. It will be China's official smartphone, available on all 3 major carriers there. It will soon be on 3 of the top 4 carriers in the US (Sprint just announced the Sprint HTC Hero available in October, Verizon is getting the HTC Predator). There are now Internet Tablets (from Archos) coming with Android as the OS installed, so it's going beyond cellphones.

And finally, Android is now in the same position Apple was in 2007, they just launched, and they're getting crazy media attention. We'll see in 2 years if it destroyed the iPhone's growth or not. My bet is that it'll detrone RIM and the blackberry before the iPhone does.


With Samsung and LG in on the Android I see great things happening. Samsung and LG have been making far superior phones in Asia for years. In fact in Japan phones capabilities dwarf the iPhones. The only thing the iPhone has really is the App store going for it. Thats why this rejection is a huge thing. All the iPhone features are nothing new.

[*LTD*]

Thats because its pretty obvious by all your posts that Apple is never wrong and its always Microsoft being Evil, or AT&T forcing Apple to take the blame like George McFly. I'm sorry I don't think Steve Jobs has taken the blame for anything regardless of the money. To Steve, Steve is #1, Money is #2, Bono is #3, and we the customers don't even make the list.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10019711-37.html

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/08/apples-customer-satisfaction-up-despite-struggling-industry.ars

http://digg.com/apple/Apple_leads_2009_customer_satisfaction_survey

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/08/16/apple.no..1.on.csi/

http://theappleblog.com/2009/05/06/apple-customer-satisfaction-its-the-experience/

http://blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2007/04/behind-scenes-why-apples-customerbase

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2008/08/mac_customer_sa.html

http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-posts-highest-score-ever-on-customer-satisfaction-index/2553

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/22467/

http://bindapple.com/apple-satisfaction-2009-report/

http://www.macnn.com/news/25971

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/14/iphone-3gs-trumps-palm-pre-in-satisfaction-survey/

http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/article/iPhone_Satisfaction_Off_The_Charts/

http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/08/14/iphone-3gs-99-pure-satisfaction/

http://www.mactivist.com/2009/06/iphone-macs-ipod-sweep-2008-customer-satisfaction-rankings-in-japan

http://www.9to5mac.com/jobs-satisfation-rate-high

http://www.jdpower.com/Business/ratings/smartphone-ratings

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2248040/apple-keeps-top-billing

http://www.eweek.com/prestitial.php?type=rest&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eweek.com%2Fc%2Fa%2FMobile-and-Wireless%2FApple-Beats-HP-and-Dell-In-Customer-Satisfaction-Study-Finds-453807%2F&ref=

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352796,00.asp

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2006/08/5002.ars

http://www.osnews.com/story/15553

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689554/posts

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-224872.html




Clearly, customers rate very low on Apple's list.

[Mattie Num Nums]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10019711-37.html

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/08/apples-customer-satisfaction-up-despite-struggling-industry.ars

http://digg.com/apple/Apple_leads_2009_customer_satisfaction_survey

http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/08/16/apple.no..1.on.csi/

http://theappleblog.com/2009/05/06/apple-customer-satisfaction-its-the-experience/

http://blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2007/04/behind-scenes-why-apples-customerbase

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2008/08/mac_customer_sa.html

http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-posts-highest-score-ever-on-customer-satisfaction-index/2553

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/22467/

http://bindapple.com/apple-satisfaction-2009-report/

http://www.macnn.com/news/25971

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/14/iphone-3gs-trumps-palm-pre-in-satisfaction-survey/

http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/article/iPhone_Satisfaction_Off_The_Charts/

http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/08/14/iphone-3gs-99-pure-satisfaction/

http://www.mactivist.com/2009/06/iphone-macs-ipod-sweep-2008-customer-satisfaction-rankings-in-japan

http://www.9to5mac.com/jobs-satisfation-rate-high

http://www.jdpower.com/Business/ratings/smartphone-ratings

http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2248040/apple-keeps-top-billing

http://www.eweek.com/prestitial.php?type=rest&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eweek.com%2Fc%2Fa%2FMobile-and-Wireless%2FApple-Beats-HP-and-Dell-In-Customer-Satisfaction-Study-Finds-453807%2F&ref=

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352796,00.asp

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2006/08/5002.ars

http://www.osnews.com/story/15553

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689554/posts

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-224872.html




Clearly, customers rate very low on Apple's list.

Reading comprehension is your friend. Customers rating a company and where the customers are rated as a priority is a different thing.

Also, those ratings come from surveys that employees have a quota to do. At every morning meeting customer surveys, personal shopping appointments, one to one sales, and easy pay transactions where dissected feverishly.

By the way Dell, HP, and Gateway rank right below Apple. 3 prodcuts with less face to face time to force feed surveys, all running Windows. Your customer satisfaction surveys mean nothing, and anyone whos worked retail can tell you that.

[ViViDboarder]

<snip>

Clearly, customers rate very low on Apple's list.

You've only proven that there are as many people that will blindly believe Apple knows what's good for them.

Apple does do well with customer service, but it's a fact that Apple doesn't listen to what people are asking for as features. They do what they want when they want it.

How long did it take Apple to implement A2DP into their laptops? All it required was a bluetooth firmware upgrade... They shipped it with Leopard. How about with the iPhone for that matter? How long did Copy and Paste take? How about video? iPhone's been capable since first gen. What about MMS? If 3rd Party, jailbroken apps could do it on the first gen, then Apple should be able to do it.

These are all big issues that people have asked for and Apple has said, "Eff you, we know what you want" and ignored it.

THIS is the point of this whole thread. Apple rejected GV because they think they know what we want more than we do. They finally acted like they were going to let users get anything they wanted by opening an app store but stuff like this just proves their mentality is not changing.

[*LTD*]

Reading comprehension is your friend. Customers rating a company and where the customers are rated as a priority is a different thing.


With those results - or rather FACTS, available to everyone, "where the customers are rated" makes no difference.

With products like what Apple has rolled out over the last decade, they're more than welcome to rate me as a low priority!

You can tangle this up with semantics as much as you like. The fact remains . . . those surveys, reports, studies done over the years didn't just appear out of nowhere. And it's strange that Apple is consistently on top. Year after year. And that's only a small sampling I posted of what's out there. Record quarters, record Mac sales (in a recession, no less), rinse and repeat. So it's what, all due to the particular moon cycles at the time? Or does it have something to do with the tides, or the Earth's magnetic field? :D


You've only proven that there are as many people that will blindly believe Apple knows what's good for them.


Yes, that's right. If so many people are happy and enthusiastic with Apple, they *must* be blind, deaf and dumb - despite the existence of lower-cost alternative that purportedly add more value for the money, etc.

So if the argument that those satisafaction reports, surveys, studies, year after year are skewed, doesn't work, then the next attempt to obfuscate reality would be to dismiss those customers as idiots. Again, when nothing else works, just pretend they're all dumb.

But the minority of a minority, sitting here on MR, knows the *real* story, right? You're plugged in to the pulse of the tech industry, and everyone else despite facts, numbers, and REALITY, is wrong. ROFL.

[ViViDboarder]

With those results - or rather FACTS, available to everyone, "where the customers are rated" makes no difference.

With products like what Apple has rolled out over the last decade, they're more than welcome to rate me as a low priority!

You can tangle this up with semantics as much as you like. The fact remains . . . those surveys, reports, studies done over the years didn't just appear out of nowhere. And it's strange that Apple is consistently on top. Year after year. And that's only a small sampling I posted of what's out there. Record quarters, record Mac sales (in a recession, no less), rinse and repeat. So it's what, all due to the particular moon cycles at the time? Or does it have something to do with the tides, or the Earth's magnetic field? :D




Yes, that's right. If so many people are happy and enthusiastic with Apple, they *must* be blind, deaf and dumb - despite the existence of lower-cost alternative that purportedly add more value for the money, etc.

So if the argument that those satisafaction reports, surveys, studies, year after year are skewed, doesn't work, then the next attempt to obfuscate reality would be to dismiss those customers as idiots. Again, when nothing else works, just pretend they're all dumb.

But the minority of a minority, sitting here on MR, knows the *real* story, right? You're plugged in to the pulse of the tech industry, and everyone else despite facts, numbers, and REALITY, is worng. ROFL.

ROFL all you want. There are lots of people that are unhappy as well and lots of people that just stay quiet and don't know of anything better.

Here!!! I can post links too!!! (I won't flood the forum with too many)
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/computers/apple.html
http://appledefects.com/

Wow!!! There are people that contradict the opinions you showed!! People that have CONSISTENTLY found defects in Apple products that Apple refuses to fix!!! Who knew!?!?

Also, I think we can safely ignore your posts since you have admitted that you don't care if they ignore you as a customer.

Think about it... Why would we be here posting exclusively to bash Apple? I'm not an MR newbie. I own a Macbook Pro an iPod and an iPhone. It's just naive to think that Apple is OMFG Teh Bestest!!!

Apple is a very innovative company but I'll tell you I'm glad that their computers have a much loser rope than the iPhone. I like to be in control of my devices, even if they are Steve Jobs' babies.

[KnightWRX]

With those results - or rather FACTS, available to everyone, "where the customers are rated" makes no difference.

With products like what Apple has rolled out over the last decade, they're more than welcome to rate me as a low priority!

You mean their distant 3rd place in smartphones or their abysmal single digit market share in desktop PCs ?

Look, we obviously all love Apple products. But to think they are all flawless and good for everyone is insane.

[*LTD*]

You mean their distant 3rd place in smartphones or their abysmal single digit market share in desktop PCs ?

Look, we obviously all love Apple products. But to think they are all flawless and good for everyone is insane.

"Distant third"? in the span of two years, the iPhone, on a limited number of carriers, with a single device, is right behind RIM, and by the looks of it, closing damn fast. And the iPhone in China is just over the horizon. The iPhone will overtake RIM. That's a given.

Like I said, and like many others have said (outside the little MR bubble), the competition had better get its act together:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=20874

As for the "market share issue", you should know better, being on an Apple site and all . .

Apple functions at the Premium end of the market. It isn't one big market. There are levels to it. There are consumers in particular income brackets that are locked out of Apple's demographic. This is one of the defining characteristics of any Premium product.

Apple deliberately, and this has been stated numerous times by Jobs and Cook et al, does not license their OS out to everyone and their dog, and they deliberately choose to stay out of the low end, and even shun a good portion of the mid-end.

There are between 50-70 million Mac users. The Mac is understood as, and marketed as, a Premium product. Fewer units sold, but at much higher margins. Apple has stated quite clearly that they refuse to operate at the low-end. This means they provide a vastly different (and very attractive and coveted) user experience that people (who are able to) are willing to pay more for. Apple would not cheapen or muddy its brand image by competing on the same level with the likes of Dell, for example. Either you differentiate yourself via some clear, desirable, distinguishing features, or you compete on price like the rest of the pack.

This is what has Microsoft acting so defensive: Windows still has overwhelming unit sale market share, but it is now almost entirely at the low end of the market.There are substantial implications to Microsoft under these circumstances. Just one of the reasons they are opening these Stores. MS is trying very hard to shed its bargain-bin image. A bit late for that, though.

"Market Share" is very often misunderstood. With a fraction of Microsoft's market share, Apple is not only thriving, but it also is in a position as:

1) The industry innovator
2) The most powerful brand in the industry today
3) Producer of the most coveted notebooks and devices in the industry today
4) The one to follow. Apple does everyone else's R&D for them (apparently.)

So when you discuss "market share", you need to determine exactly which end of the market you're talking about. The lion's share of what part of the market? The Premium end of the market pyramid is near or at the top. It's much more narrow, but the consumer approaches tech (and other products) from an entirely different perspective (often not on price), with difference epxectations that Apple happens to cater to. Ideally, you WANT to rule the Premium end. It's these customers that build your brand, that make it desirable, and that will pay top dollar for what you provide.

[ViViDboarder]

Apple functions at the Premium end of the market. It isn't one big market. There are levels to it. There are consumers in particular income brackets that are locked out of Apple's demographic. This is one of the defining characteristics of any Premium product.

Apple deliberately, and this has been stated numerous times by Jobs and Cook et al, does not license their OS out to everyone and their dog, and they deliberately choose to stay out of the low end, and even shun a good portion of the mid-end.

There are between 50-70 million Mac users. The Mac is understood as, and marketed as, a Premium product. Fewer units sold, but at much higher margins. Apple has stated quite clearly that they refuse to operate at the low-end. This means they provide a vastly different (and very attractive and coveted) user experience that people (who are able to) are willing to pay more for. Apple would not cheapen or muddy its brand image by competing on the same level with the likes of Dell, for example. Either you differentiate yourself via some clear, desirable, distinguishing features, or you compete on price like the rest of the pack.


So... Microsoft is the "New Apple Inc.?"

The original founding of Apple with Woz was to bring PERSONAL computing to the consumer and make a computer that was affordable and not limited only to the rich and the big companies.

Microsoft is doing that quiet well. :) Linux even better. :p

I understand what you're saying about brand image though. It is most definitely Apple's reason for a lot of what they are doing. It cannot be denied that they hold their brand image higher than the desire of consumers. This is the reason they leave out features and don't offer an Apple Netbook etc...

Oh and PS... It's NOT a given that iPhone will overtake RIM. There are a lot of people that are just as happy with their blackberries as you are with your iPhone.


AAAND your post was edited...

Apple is not R&D for everyone else...
For example Mulit-Touch has been around for a while http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

Apple SELLS. They sell things very well and they make things look great.

I just don't see why, when nobody here is arguing that Apple is a good company worthy of us browsing rumors forums and buying their products, you have to go Mac-Head on us and bow down to kiss the feet of His Steveness.

NO. Apple did not invent sliced bread. Get over it and accept that they are just another company.

[KnightWRX]

"Distant third"? in the span of two years, the iPhone, on a limited number of carriers, with a single device, is right behind RIM, and by the looks of it, closing damn fast. And the iPhone in China is just over the horizon. The iPhone will overtake RIM. That's a given.

Right behind RIM, that like you said, appeals more to a business segment, which is narrower than the mass of population that the iPhone is destined too.

And Right behind by about 33% yeah with 13% to RIM's 18%.

The iPhone in China will be on 1 carrier, China Unicom. However, the other 2 big carriers will have the CPhone (China Telecom) and the OPhone (China Mobile). Those are both based on Android.

Android is now in it's first year. It is ahead in some features of its OS, it is ahead in number of carriers, it is ahead in number of Hardware manufacturers and it is ahead in devices. It has partnerships the like Steve Jobs only dreams of.

If you wish to ignore all this and think the iPhone can be more than a niche player if Apple continues on the path it took, then yes, you are being delusional. As it stand, by sheer numbers and without restrictions, in 2 years, Apple will still be behind RIM while Android will be wrestling with Nokia for 1st place.

[ViViDboarder]

Right behind RIM, that like you said, appeals more to a business segment, which is narrower than the mass of population that the iPhone is destined too.

And Right behind by about 33% yeah with 13% to RIM's 18%.

The iPhone in China will be on 1 carrier, China Unicom. However, the other 2 big carriers will have the CPhone (China Telecom) and the OPhone (China Mobile). Those are both based on Android.

Android is now in it's first year. It is ahead in some features of its OS, it is ahead in number of carriers, it is ahead in number of Hardware manufacturers and it is ahead in devices. It has partnerships the like Steve Jobs only dreams of.

If you wish to ignore all this and think the iPhone can be more than a niche player if Apple continues on the path it took, then yes, you are being delusional. As it stand, by sheer numbers and without restrictions, in 2 years, Apple will still be behind RIM while Android will be wrestling with Nokia for 1st place.

Another competitor announced today. :D

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/22/moblin-2-1-eyes-on/

Intel went the opposite direction as Google. The Desktop/netbook OS Moblin is being brought to a phone. I've seen Moblin and it is really cool. This could be awesome.

[*LTD*]

So... Microsoft is the "New Apple Inc.?"

The original founding of Apple with Woz was to bring PERSONAL computing to the consumer and make a computer that was affordable and not limited only to the rich and the big companies

And you bring up an interesting point. It seems Apple has positioned itself as a provider of a Premium-space product over the last ten years or so. Of course, the marketing spin goes that it's worth the money and we should all be paying it as a matter of course.

It's a way to further differentiate itself from MS, partially by nurturing an image of exclusivity, hence something that adds to desirability. Apple's discovered over the last decade that there is quite a market for its products, along with people who are willing to pay for it. Apple is simply charging what the market is able to bear - and apparently, in a recession, too. People have to really, really want Macs to pay more for them in this economic enviroment. Apple realized they had a good product, something that has clearly distinguishing features and which is in great demand, and they at some point began to charge accordingly.

In this market, however, very few can compete on price with Windows PCs anyway. Something more is needed.

Macs are indeed the personal computer for everyone. Notwithstanding ability to pay. ;)


Another competitor announced today. :D

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/22/moblin-2-1-eyes-on/

Intel went the opposite direction as Google. The Desktop/netbook OS Moblin is being brought to a phone. I've seen Moblin and it is really cool. This could be awesome.

I tried the beta out back in June on an Asus Aspire One I bought for a relative. I was impressed. A little rough around the edges, but very suited to netbooks and the like. I loved the way everything was organized. I haven't played with it since, though.

[ViViDboarder]

And you bring up an interesting point. It seems Apple has positioned itself as a provider of a Premium-space product over the last ten years or so. Of course, the marketing spin goes that it's worth the money and we should all be paying it as a matter of course.

It's a way to further differentiate itself from MS, partially by nurturing an image of exclusivity, hence something that adds to desirability. Apple's discovered over the last decade that there is quite a market for its products, along with people who are willing to pay for it. Apple is simply charging what the market is able to bear - and apparently, in a recession, too. People have to really, really want Macs to pay more for them in this economic enviroment. Apple realized they had a good product, something that has clearly distinguishing features and which is in great demand, and they at some point began to charge accordingly.

In this market, however, very few can compete on price with Windows PCs anyway. Something more is needed.

Macs are indeed the personal computer for everyone. Notwithstanding ability to pay. ;)




I tried the beta out back in June on an Asus Aspire One I bought for a relative. I was impressed. A little rough around the edges, but very suited to netbooks and the like. I loved the way everything was organized. I haven't played with it since, though.

Apple has been consistent in being an "alternative" to the norm. It's just funny that they have switched positions a bit since the very beginning as far as being for the average person. :D

I wish I could run Moblin! My netbook is an EeePC 900 and it doesn't have a compatible chip. :(

[Mattie Num Nums]

With those results - or rather FACTS, available to everyone, "where the customers are rated" makes no difference.


You should work for apple or Obama. You are just a blind spin artist. My statement again had nothing to do with customer satisfaction again it had to do with Apple priorities, and customer service isn't one of them. Walk into an Apple store with a broken computer and watch all the iPhone users get support before you, walk in with an old Mac and watch the geniuses laugh at you. I was behind that bar for a long time the priorities just aren't their. Unless you buy Procare.

[FearNo1]

I agree. But first android phones need to be available on more providers than tmobile. Its like they have a monopoly on the device. Its in google's best interest to have android on multiple devices but multiple networks as well. While apple is a dominant player now, things could change in another year or two...

As it stand, by sheer numbers and without restrictions, in 2 years, Apple will still be behind RIM while Android will be wrestling with Nokia for 1st place.

[FearNo1]

I dunno... the mobile OS market is already too crowded with rim, apple, google, M$, palm, and symbian in it.

Another competitor announced today. :D

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/22/moblin-2-1-eyes-on/

Intel went the opposite direction as Google. The Desktop/netbook OS Moblin is being brought to a phone. I've seen Moblin and it is really cool. This could be awesome.

[KnightWRX]

I agree. But first android phones need to be available on more providers than tmobile. Its like they have a monopoly on the device. Its in google's best interest to have android on multiple devices but multiple networks as well. While apple is a dominant player now, things could change in another year or two...

If you haven't read the thread, I already stated that Google has signed 3 of the top 4 carriers in the US. Sprint is getting their first Android phone on the 11th of October (the Sprint HTC Hero). Verizon is also getting into the action this fall. That's only in the US.

Smaller providers are also onboard. About the only company missing is AT&T. If they're anything like Rogers in Canada, they will also be getting Android devices.

[FearNo1]

Oh OK, no I have not read all this thread (it is 19 pages long!). So the hero is coming to US this year.. Will it be on other services other than sprint? I may be in the market for a new phone. The hero is pretty slick. I have thought about getting an iphone for a while but I dislike the crap that apple/at+t are pulling, plus the iphone still has a lousy speaker phone. Sprint may be making a come back with the unlimited everything, pre and hero. Hopefully their network can support the influx of users tho...

If you haven't read the thread, I already stated that Google has signed 3 of the top 4 carriers in the US. Sprint is getting their first Android phone on the 11th of October (the Sprint HTC Hero). Verizon is also getting into the action this fall. That's only in the US.

Smaller providers are also onboard. About the only company missing is AT&T. If they're anything like Rogers in Canada, they will also be getting Android devices.

[*LTD*]

You should work for apple or Obama. You are just a blind spin artist. My statement again had nothing to do with customer satisfaction again it had to do with Apple priorities, and customer service isn't one of them. Walk into an Apple store with a broken computer and watch all the iPhone users get support before you, walk in with an old Mac and watch the geniuses laugh at you. I was behind that bar for a long time the priorities just aren't their. Unless you buy Procare.

http://www.focus.com/fyi/customer-service/10-best-and-10-worst-companies-customer-service/

The American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ASCI)* second quarter report indicates that within the Personal Computers category, customers perceived Apple as the best company in terms of customer service. Apple’s baseline score was 77 (on a 100-point scale), and the Q2 2006 score was 83.

Computerworld, discussing Apple’s number one ranking says, “The Company’s focus on product innovation and customer service has won it a cadre of famously loyal customers, unlike any other PC vendor. And why are Dell’s scores slipping? The article elaborates, “Survey respondents complained mostly about the quality of Dell’s customer service, not its products, Van Amburg said… customers were clearly more frustrated with Dell than they were last year, he said.”

This blog post ‘New Virus Found! The You Suck Virus,’ states, “Part of being “excellent” in business is being innovative. If you agree with that one criteria (I know there are more) then Apple is the clear winner when it comes to innovation. Companies like Dell, HP, and IBM make good computers but once you compare them to a really excellent product (like an Apple) it is easy to see the difference.”

This 2003 article indicates that Apple is pretty consistent when it comes to high-quality customer service, “Apple did garnish the number one customer service ranking in the 2001 Consumer Reports Annual Questionnaire, and a number one ranking for desktop repairs in May 2003.” Here are some customer compliments for Apple.


http://www.macworld.com/article/133293/2008/05/consumer.html

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/11/apples-customer-service-gets-highest-marks-among-callers.ars

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/apple-tops-pc-customer-service-rankings/

http://deluxethemes.com/comfy/69/apples-customers-love-its-customer-service/

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/new-online-get-a-mac-ad-features-apples-high-customer-service-rating/

http://www.tuaw.com/2006/08/17/apple-turns-the-most-customer-service-frowns-upside-down/

http://experiencematters.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/apple-beats-windows-in-customer-experience/

[VoR]

My experience with dell's customer support has been fantastic the couple of times I've used it - I'd like to see apple driving round two new screens the next day, bought off ebay, without reciepts.
Last time I used apples customer service (that you pay extra for) it left a lot to be desired.

I'm afraid I don't read/write any blogs like the ones you pasted, and I've never participated in one of these (rubbish?...) satisfaction surveys. I live in the UK and I don't have experience of IT cs' anywhere else and don't know if/how it differs.

[rcarranza]

So your argument is flawed, as such, you side with Apple without even knowing what this is all about. You might want to rethink your position.

I'm not going to rethink my position but will admit that my argument was flawed in this instance. I bought the iPhone for what it could do itself. The Apps store was a huge bonus. But I do not feel that Apple have to approve every single App that comes through.

It doesn't take away anything. It adds more choice.

I made a choice when I bought the phone, as did many other consumers. To use the OS/functions already provided. I do not need another one as I believe the one provided does the job and does it well.

Apple opened up a can of worms with the Apps Store, in terms of what it could and should allow. I for one believe it is Apples choice and their choice alone whether they allow an App to be sold/distributed on their device.

Should Tesco (UK supermarket) demand that Asda sells its own brand food. Even though they have the shops to do it themselves?

But the whole reason I'm against this is the idea that Google are trying to get in on everything! It won't be long before Google causes the death of things like independent news/libraries etc. Don't be evil seems to be a distant memory.

They've created their own device/OS. Use that if you want certain features inherent to Google. I'm happy using the features that are on my iPhone and have no other need for this alternative. And surprise, surprise, there will be more people who feel that way about it than those up in arms about this.

[xIGmanIx]

all the arguments for rejecting this based on duplicate feature set blah blah blah are crap. If apple or AT&T had heartburn, you wouldn't allow VOIP on any device period, which they don't or that apple doesn't allow any other similar feature set on the iPhone, which they do, Skype. If true, it just is another chip away at the folks from Apple being monopolistic

[bjb.butler]

all the arguments for rejecting this based on duplicate feature set blah blah blah are crap. If apple or AT&T had heartburn, you wouldn't allow VOIP on any device period, which they don't or that apple doesn't allow any other similar feature set on the iPhone, which they do, Skype. If true, it just is another chip away at the folks from Apple being monopolistic

Well skype is a VoIP app...

Google Voice IS NOT a VoIP app, and it does in fact duplicate several different elements of built-in iPhone functionality.

[KnightWRX]

I'm happy using the features that are on my iPhone and have no other need for this alternative.

And what does Apple approving Google's app change for you ? Nothing at all. So you being against it because you don't need it seems pretty egotistical.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Apple really needs to kick Cingulair/AT&T out of bed.

Limiting their market share and pulling stunts like this is not helping them.

[revbarabbas]

This is exactly what happened with Opera mini.

Safari in the iPhone 3GS is ****ing great. But if Opera manages to get their app into the App store I'll sure as hell will be buying an iPhone. (provided I can unlock it :p)

The thing that messes me up is that Opera gets the boot, but "FullBrowser" gets to stay? I can only wonder what will happen when Fennec goes up for App approval.

[KnightWRX]

The thing that messes me up is that Opera gets the boot, but "FullBrowser" gets to stay? I can only wonder what will happen when Fennec goes up for App approval.

Full Browser is just a Web View with a new fancy menu. It's basically using Safari's engine and just providing a different UI on top of it.

Opera Mobile is a full HTML/JS engine with a new UI. It's not based on Webkit at all.

There's your justification for rejecting Opera.

[ViViDboarder]

Full Browser is just a Web View with a new fancy menu. It's basically using Safari's engine and just providing a different UI on top of it.

Opera Mobile is a full HTML/JS engine with a new UI. It's not based on Webkit at all.

There's your justification for rejecting Opera.

That's even MORE of a reason for Opera to be approved over Full Browser!

I think it's more confusing if the browser is exactly the same but with a new GUI.

Options are always better for the consumer. So for the few of you saying "I wouldn't use it," it doesn't matter. Then you don't have to miss it. The developers wouldn't waste their time building these apps if people didn't want them. There are lots of people that would want to see a Google Voice app or, while on the topic, even an Opera app in the App store and would not be "confused" at all.

[Rodimus Prime]

That's even MORE of a reason for Opera to be approved over Full Browser!

I think it's more confusing if the browser is exactly the same but with a new GUI.

Options are always better for the consumer. So for the few of you saying "I wouldn't use it," it doesn't matter. Then you don't have to miss it. The developers wouldn't waste their time building these apps if people didn't want them. There are lots of people that would want to see a Google Voice app or, while on the topic, even an Opera app in the App store and would not be "confused" at all.

Well you want the real reason Opera was rejected. It is all about money. On Safari apple gets a slight cut for all the ad money made though good searches you do though the phone. Take for example firefox. That night little default Googe search in the top netted Mozilla 72 million off google searches alone a few years ago. Back when firefox when firefox was just in the 1.0 stage.

That is the real reason. It is not about consumers but about the money. Apple is what I call a chicken company and has little faith in its own products standing up in a head to head fight with the competition.

[ViViDboarder]

Well you want the real reason Opera was rejected. It is all about money. On Safari apple gets a slight cut for all the ad money made though good searches you do though the phone. Take for example firefox. That night little default Googe search in the top netted Mozilla 72 million off google searches alone a few years ago. Back when firefox when firefox was just in the 1.0 stage.

That is the real reason. It is not about consumers but about the money. Apple is what I call a chicken company and has little faith in its own products standing up in a head to head fight with the competition.

Are you certain this is the case? You're saying that Google pays them for everytime someone searches in the iPhones Safari browser? Or is it just because they have it as their default search engine? If the latter is the case then it wouldn't really matter that there is a different browser either.

Also, could you provide a source for this? This is the first I'm hearing, I'd like to read more.

[dejo]

Options are always better for the consumer.
Too many options actually aren't always better for the consumer. See Barry Schwartz's "The Paradox of Choice: Why Less is More" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less).

[ViViDboarder]

Too many options actually aren't always better for the consumer. See Barry Schwartz's "The Paradox of Choice: Why Less is More" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less).

Well... You say Too many... but currently we have NO choice. :) So it's still better.

Also, that Wiki article really talks about choice as relating to Happiness. Not really what I'm getting at. Also, I tend to disagree with that theory in that, naturally, a few superior choices will generally gather attention over the lesser ones and simplify things. Look at the OS and browser war currently. We bennefit from having the option of Mac, Windows, Linux, IE, Chrome, Opera, Firefox. It's not very stressful to many people but there are THOUSANDS of choices actually out there that I did not list. If you want it, they are there, but they don't effect most people 99% of the time.

[Rodimus Prime]

Are you certain this is the case? You're saying that Google pays them for everytime someone searches in the iPhones Safari browser? Or is it just because they have it as their default search engine? If the latter is the case then it wouldn't really matter that there is a different browser either.

Also, could you provide a source for this? This is the first I'm hearing, I'd like to read more.

It is based on somethign I read about Opera being banned from the App store and the 72 mil for firefox was something I read in the paper like 4-5 years ago so finding that old article will be difficult.

The give away on firefox is on firefox default home page http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official and all those nice little google searches in the top right corner of the browsers runs threw that link above. Mozzila has a deal with google that they get part of the ad revenue off those searches.

That is how they are getting the money. It also is the only thing that would explain why Apple bans opera. Apple making that ban on Opera effectively kills other great browsers for the iphone from ever being made so you will never see Skyfire, or firefox for it (both of which are either made or in developement for Windows mobile and BB)

[FearNo1]

True, the perfect example of that is all of the crap on the app store... ;)

Too many options actually aren't always better for the consumer. See Barry Schwartz's "The Paradox of Choice: Why Less is More" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less).