Google Claims That Apple Did Reject Google Voice iPhone Application

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/18/google-claims-that-apple-did-reject-google-voice-iphone-application/)

Google today announced (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/09/our-complete-letter-to-fcc-regarding.html) today that it has released an unredacted copy (PDF) (http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/9182009_Google_Filing_iPhone.pdf) of its response to an investigation (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/31/fcc-investigating-apples-rejection-of-google-voice-iphone-application/) by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission into Apple's apparent rejection (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/28/apple-rejects-official-google-voice-iphone-application/) of the company's Google Voice iPhone application. Most significantly, Google's filing claims that Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller personally informed Google that the Google Voice iPhone application had been rejected for the reason that it "duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone".The primary points of contact between the two companies were Alan Eustace, Google Senior Vice President of Engineering & Research, and Phil Schiller, Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing. On July 7, Mr. Eustace and Mr. Schiller spoke over the phone. It was during this call that Mr. Schiller informed Mr. Eustace that Apple was rejecting the Google Voice application for the reasons described above in 2(a).The claim directly contradicts Apple's response (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/21/apple-publicly-responds-to-fcc-inquiry-comments-on-google-voice-app-status/) to the FCC, which asserted that the Google Voice application had not been rejected and was still being studied. It is unknown at this time how the FCC is proceeding to reconcile the differing accounts.

The FCC had initially posted a redacted version of Google response at the request of Google, which had made the request in order to protect "sensitive commercial communications". After several requests from individuals and organization made under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the redacted content and in light of Apple's public posting of an unredacted version of its response, Google decided to allow the full text of its response to be published.

Article Link: Google Claims That Apple Did Reject Google Voice iPhone Application (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/18/google-claims-that-apple-did-reject-google-voice-iphone-application/)

[Teh Don Ditty]

Hahahahahaha why am I not surprised?

[thegoldenmackid]

Everyone keep whining...

[w00master]

Pathetic... I'm not surprised either.

Really? Duplicating of features...? Really? Come on now.

[alent1234]

i've read that Apple also didn't like the fact that Google wanted to upload all the contacts from your phone into their systems for marketing purposes

[CFreymarc]

Hahahahahaha why am I not surprised?

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.

[Beric]

The plot thickens...

[w00master]

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.

Imho, it doesn't matter in this instance if it's PR or not. This simply bad for consumers.

Rejection b/c of duplication of features. Please, give me a break.

Does calculator apps ring any bells? How about the Vonage app? How about all those VOIP apps?

It's pathetic.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

As if we didn't know this already.

[CylonGlitch]

Come on Apple, I understand your motives but damn, even this Apple supporter is getting a bit tired of the babysitting.

[Bubba Satori]

Legal lying bag of hurt.

Great, incredible, cool, easy, amazing....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx7v815bYUw

[*LTD*]

I cared about a month ago.

[occamsrazor]

Apple has gone so far off course I don't think they even realise it, or if they do, that's even worse... I can't even watch the 1984 ad any more, it's so far removed from the Apple of today.

[DTphonehome]

I cared about a month ago.

I'm glad the FTC has a longer attention span than you do. Hopefully this will force Apple to open up a bit by the time this is all over. And hopefully it will be with minimum kicking and screaming from Apple. Avoid the spectacle and open up already.

[w00master]

I cared about a month ago.

I love how the apologists are creepin' out of the woodwork... Case in Point.

[thejadedmonkey]

Engadget does a really good job at explaining it in terms we can all understand.Phil Schiller himself told Google that GV had been rejected on July 7 for duplication of functionality, following a similar conversation on April 10th during which Schiller rejected Google Latitude in part because it might "offer new features not present on the preloaded maps application."

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]

[*LTD*]

Apple has gone so far off course I don't think they even realise it, or if they do, that's even worse... I can't even watch the 1984 ad any more, it's so far removed from the Apple of today.

Apple delivering products people want, consistently, when no one else seems to be doing it. Apple is being proactive. Thing is, when you want to maintain the user experience, you need to keep things tight, integrated, and controlled. Same Apple we saw in 1984, just on a larger scale.

The average user hardly noticed Google Voice when it was an issue, and cares even less today. But they certainly notice the greater benefits of buying in to the Apple ecosystem, as we're seeing.

Small price to pay, really.

[Small White Car]

I don't see much new here...I mean, I guess some of this is now 'confirmed' instead of 'speculation,' but I think it's all stuff everyone assumed was true, right?

[Consultant]

Apple delivering products people want, consistently, when no one else seems to be doing it. Apple is being proactive. Thing is, when you want to maintain the user experience, you need to keep things tight, integrated, and controlled. Same Apple we saw in 1984, just on a larger scale.

The average user hardly noticed Google Voice when it was an issue, and cares even less today. But they certainly notice the greater benefits of buying in to the Apple ecosystem.

Small price to pay, really.

Agree.

However I also think something that like should be just left alone. It's not like GV removes the Phone app and inserts itself in its place.

[dagamer34]

Apple has gone so far off course I don't think they even realise it, or if they do, that's even worse... I can't even watch the 1984 ad any more, it's so far removed from the Apple of today.

Apple is on the TV screen in that ad now. It's sad.

[w00master]

Apple delivering products people want, consistently, when no one else seems to be doing it. Apple is being proactive. Thing is, when you want to maintain the user experience, you need to keep things tight, integrated, and controlled. Same Apple we saw in 1984, just on a larger scale.

The average user hardly noticed Google Voice when it was an issue, and cares even less today. But they certainly notice the greater benefits of buying in to the Apple ecosystem.

Small price to pay, really.

Wonderful short term thinking there.

In terms of the LONG term though? Not so good, and not so hot.

If app developers aren't confident in building great apps for the iPhone platform (which, imho is a great platform), then how is this good for consumers in the long run? Don't you want something beyond fart apps and games?

I do.

w00master

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Apple delivering products people want, consistently, when no one else seems to be doing it. Apple is being proactive. Thing is, when you want to maintain the user experience, you need to keep things tight, integrated, and controlled. Same Apple we saw in 1984, just on a larger scale.
Not at all. Apple was all about developers back in the day, they would bend over backward for those making software. Apple was all about fighting the man back in the day, now Apple is more of the man than Microsoft (in many ways).

The average user hardly noticed Google Voice when it was an issue, and cares even less today. But they certainly notice the greater benefits of buying in to the Apple ecosystem.

Small price to pay, really.

Really? So because the lowest common denominator has no use for Google Voice then everyone should just sit down and shut up?

[kdarling]

Apple is simply an extension of its CEO's personality. His ways are ingrained into Apple's public facing culture.

They stretch the truth as far as possible, and think that they're covered by a magical RDF.

[crees!]

Again the government getting its dirty paws into how a private company must operate. Fabulous.

[outphase]

I cared about a month ago.

IIRC, you didn't care much at all. You were trashing on the GV service.

[slapguts]

...what programs can you create?

[bold mine]

Fart apps and flashlights. :D

[maestro55]

What bothers me here, is why should Apple care. If I buy an iPhone to use on AT&T or I want to save money and use Google Voice, Apple is still selling me the phone.

What are they afraid of?

[rols]

I continue not to give a crap about Google's hurt feelings. I like that apple keeps control over the device and the entire user experience, the speed, the responsiveness, the whole look and feel. I like it because I have a phone which works in a consistent way, which feels like it was designed, not bodged together at an all-night pizza party. Innovation and design are not the same thing.

If the iPhone falls behind other offerings because they over-restrict creativity, then I won't buy another one when my contract is up and I'll switch and if enough other people do so, apple will change or lose (they can change, the appstore grew rapidly when the the 'only webapps for iphone' idea proved to be a flop).

It's their phone, it's their platform, they designed it, if they want it to have a certain consistency and be used in a given way and have core functionality restricted to the way they saw it, well that's their right.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Again the government getting its dirty paws into how a private company must operate. Fabulous.

You wouldn't want the government involved when Apple is being anticompetitive? Why wouldn't you want the consumer protected?

[*LTD*]

IIRC, you didn't care much at all. You were trashing on the GV service.

I was being sarcastic, yes. I didn't really care then, and I care even less now.

[cumanzor]

Pathetic... I'm not surprised either.

Really? Duplicating of features...? Really? Come on now.

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)

[thejadedmonkey]

Apple delivering products people want, consistently, when no one else seems to be doing it. Apple is being proactive. Thing is, when you want to maintain the user experience, you need to keep things tight, integrated, and controlled. Same Apple we saw in 1984, just on a larger scale.

The average user hardly noticed Google Voice when it was an issue, and cares even less today. But they certainly notice the greater benefits of buying in to the Apple ecosystem, as we're seeing.

Small price to pay, really.

Not at all. If it weren't for an open platform, we wouldn't have things like Adium or Cyberduck because only the big name players could afford it, much like how the current council market is (excluding 360 XNA stuff).

[*LTD*]

Fart apps and flashlights. :D

Plus everything in the Productivity, Business, Reference, and Medical sections. You kinda forgot that.

How many of you actually use the App Store and have any clue how to search it or use its filters?

Obviously, games and the like are going to drive App Store popularity.

[hanpa]

Not very surprising. Another result of the "non-agreement" between AT&T and Apple. Strange...

[w00master]

It's their phone, it's their platform, they designed it, if they want it to have a certain consistency and be used in a given way and have core functionality restricted to the way they saw it, well that's their right.

I agree with you, but at the same time I'm looking at this as a CONSUMER and the apps that I want for this device.

Google & Apple said it themselves in the document: Duplication of Features.

Think about ALL of the apps on the app store. THink about how SO MANY of them DUPLICATE FEATURES on the iPhone.

Give me consistency Apple.

Give app developers confidence in building apps BEYOND games & fart apps.

The iPhone is the best mobile platform, period, but I'd like some longevity in the platform and something MORE sophisticated than yet another Wikipedia app.

w00master

[occamsrazor]

Apple is on the TV screen in that ad now. It's sad.

+1

As for Apple needing to maintain the user experience, yeah, I agree, the great UI is the key to all Apple's products. But tell me exactly how allowing users to voluntarily install a Google Voice app is gonna cause the user experience to come crashing down?
Sorry but I call BS. Apple killed it because it threatened the business models of the big Telcos who Apple is symbiotically entwined with now.
The fact is that as much as I like Apple's products, the insanely controlled lockdown of anything that isn't "authorised" whether it benefits the user or not, is frankly just control-freakery. I AM the consumer, the user, the owner of the product, I'm tired of being prevented from doing what I want with it - THIS is what hurts my user experience.

[Small White Car]

You wouldn't want the government involved when Apple is being anticompetitive? Why wouldn't you want the consumer protected?

I fully support the government's right to jump in and force companies to do things when it needs to be done.

And yet, I'm agreeing with that other guy up there. This is not the time for that.

This would be important if there were no other smart phones. But there are. Buy the one that does what you need. Until the iPhone has 75% of the market, this kind of thing isn't needed.

[w00master]

Plus everything in the Productivity, Business, Reference, and Medical sections. You kinda forgot that.

How many of you actually use the App Store and have any clue how to search it or use its filters?

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

[w00master]

I fully support the government's right to jump in and force companies to do things when it needs to be done.

And yet, I'm agreeing with that other guy up there. This is not the time for that.

This would important if there were no other smart phones. There are. Buy the one that does what you need. Until they iPhone has 75% of the market, this kind of thing isn't needed.

I do not agree that the Gov't should be involved either, but my complaint is *directly* toward Apple as a CONSUMER.

w00master

[jaw04005]

I'm glad the FTC has a longer attention span than you do. Hopefully this will force Apple to open up a bit by the time this is all over. And hopefully it will be with minimum kicking and screaming from Apple. Avoid the spectacle and open up already.

This is the FCC, not the FTC. They're primarily interested in if AT&T forced Apple to reject the Google Voice application as part of their continuing VoIP vs. carrier monitoring.

If AT&T didn't have hand in the rejection (which they've said they didn't), the investigation would be over from their point of view. It would be a hell of a reach on their part if they tried to force Apple to approve the Google Voice application since it's a private marketplace and Apple's not a cell carrier.

That would be the FTC's job. And they're already investigating Google and Apple.

[Spades]

i've read that Apple also didn't like the fact that Google wanted to upload all the contacts from your phone into their systems for marketing purposes

Apple has no problems with another app that does the same thing, so that claim seems more like smoke and mirrors.

[dagamer34]

+1

As for Apple needing to maintain the user experience, yeah, I agree, the great UI is the key to all Apple's products. But tell me exactly how allowing users to voluntarily install a Google Voice app is gonna cause the user experience to come crashing down?
Sorry but I call BS. Apple killed it because it threatened the business models of the big Telcos who Apple is symbiotically entwined with now.
The fact is that as much as I like Apple's products, the insanely controlled lockdown of anything that isn't "authorised" whether it benefits the user or not, is frankly just control-freakery. I AM the consumer, the user, the owner of the product, I'm tired of being prevented from doing what I want with it - THIS is what hurts my user experience.


This is the reason why I recently bought a PC. I mean, a Mac works great if you do what Apple wants you to do, but if you ever want to do more, they slap you in the face.

[*LTD*]

+1

As for Apple needing to maintain the user experience, yeah, I agree, the great UI is the key to all Apple's products. But tell me exactly how allowing users to voluntarily install a Google Voice app is gonna cause the user experience to come crashing down?
Sorry but I call BS. Apple killed it because it threatened the business models of the big Telcos who Apple is symbiotically entwined with now.
The fact is that as much as I like Apple's products, the insanely controlled lockdown of anything that isn't "authorised" whether it benefits the user or not, is frankly just control-freakery. I AM the consumer, the user, the owner of the product, I'm tired of being prevented from doing what I want with it - THIS is what hurts my user experience.

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.

[bozzykid]

i've read that Apple also didn't like the fact that Google wanted to upload all the contacts from your phone into their systems for marketing purposes

You read an idiot writer then. The app didn't do that and you can already do that with Google sync on the iPhone anyways. Plus this is how exchange works, yet they still support exchange. If Apple didn't want contacts being uploaded to servers, I guess they should block exchange support to?

[rob1215]

If Google wins dose this mean I can sew McDonalds for not selling the Whopper

[slapguts]

Plus everything in the Productivity, Business, Reference, and Medical sections. You kinda forgot that.

How many of you actually use the App Store and have any clue how to search it or use its filters?

Obviously, games and the like are going to drive App Store popularity.

Maybe you missed my first one, so here's some more-
:D:D:D

I was being sarcastic.

[pdjudd]

It's their phone, it's their platform, they designed it, if they want it to have a certain consistency and be used in a given way and have core functionality restricted to the way they saw it, well that's their right.
And thats the key - Apple made no qualms that App distribution was something that they were going to control and that not everything was going to be approved. That was over 2 years ago. If you (as a developer and user), do not want to be bound to that model, that is your choice. Its definitely not a perfect or an ideal system, but people are buying into it willingly.

There is no law that states that Apple has to approve all applications. Apple does not have a monopoly on phones and if people don't want to be bound to Apple's business model, than they should not be purchasing Apple products. People are. We have to remind ourselves that Apple has never been about choice. They sell products based on what they like. They have been doing this for years and nobody has stopped them

[FaasNat]

Apple delivering products people want, consistently, when no one else seems to be doing it. Apple is being proactive. Thing is, when you want to maintain the user experience, you need to keep things tight, integrated, and controlled. Same Apple we saw in 1984, just on a larger scale. You mean like the tight, integrated, and controlled movement the "drones" did following the man on the screen?

[occamsrazor]

It's their phone, it's their platform, they designed it, if they want it to have a certain consistency and be used in a given way and have core functionality restricted to the way they saw it, well that's their right.

Great... so if Apple decided that all 3rd party apps for Mac OS X had to go through an Apple "approval process" you'd be cool with that too?

[w00master]

Great... so if Apple decided that all 3rd party apps for Mac OS X had to go through an Apple "approval process" you'd be cool with that too?

With these apologist... I'm sure they'll come up with a "great" excuse.

:rolleyes:

w00master

[*LTD*]

And thats the key - Apple made no qualms that App distribution was something that they were going to control and that not everything was going to be approved. That was over 2 years ago. If you (as a developer and user), do not want to be bound to that model, that is your choice. Its definitely not a perfect or an ideal system, but people are buying into it willingly.

There is no law that states that Apple has to approve all applications. Apple does not have a monopoly on phones and if people don't want to be bound to Apple's business model, than they should not be purchasing Apple products. People are. We have to remind ourselves that Apple has never been about choice. They sell products based on what they like. They have been doing this for years and nobody has stopped them

This. This is the reality. It might be hard to see through all the geek-tears around here, but this is it.

[zombitronic]

Avoid the spectacle and open up already.

Can I interest you in the wonderfully open app store of the Zune HD? Oh, wait.

[jav6454]

All this for:

FFC (dad): Alright who is responsible for this mess?

[sons]

Apple: He did it!

Google: No he did it!


.
.
.

This would go on forever....

[pdjudd]

If Apple didn't want contacts being uploaded to servers, I guess they should block exchange support to?

Exchange is a different beast since the supported infrastructure tends to be on servers either owned by, or controlled by the end user or the company that they work for. Users typically get exchange access granted from the company side of things and the degree of control is very different.

Not to mention, that you need to have access to an exchange server with ActiveSync to actually be of any use. Its a corporate email system.

[iOrlando]

was rejecting is not the same as rejected....


i was failing but i didnt fail.


i was winning but i didnt win.


its all in the details.

[clevin]

you can bet those who defends indefensable bold face lies of apple, are either RDF soaked fanboy, or apple stock holders. They can care less about end users benefits.

Its disgusting to say the least.

[jellomizer]

More companies should sue Apple for rejecting their products. Apple should really be more of finding reasons to accept applications vs. Finding Reasons to Reject them. Apple reminds me of elementary school where after a quiz you would give you paper to an other student who would grade your paper. Where kids would take joy in marking their peers papers as wrong. I remember getting an answer wrong because my C looked like an L (On a multiple choice quiz of A, B, C) This is how Apple seems to be about accepting their apps. Lets find a reason to reject vs. Reasons to accept the product.

[w00master]

Just wondering when all of the apologists are going to join Apple's Marketing and PR team?

Oh, they already are.

:rolleyes:

w00master

[pdjudd]

Great... so if Apple decided that all 3rd party apps for Mac OS X had to go through an Apple "approval process" you'd be cool with that too?

Except that Apple has not nor is there any evidence that remotely suggests that Apple is actually proposing such a system. Not to mention that phones and computers are very different devices as far as Apple sees things.

[FaasNat]

Great... so if Apple decided that all 3rd party apps for Mac OS X had to go through an Apple "approval process" you'd be cool with that too?Well, they do control what hardware OS X is installed on....

:-P

[nikhsub1]

If Google wins dose this mean I can sue McDonalds for not selling the Whopper
Fixed.

All of you that are OK with Apple disallowing GV seem to like to be told what you can and can not do. How did you all get so submissive?

[smeagol]

What the hell is wrong with my beloved Apple. The era of thinking different, the culture of encouraging innovation is slowly fading away. They're slowly morphing into a Microsoftistic 800-lbs gorilla. Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from The Dark Knight... "Do you die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain?" :eek:

[w00master]

Except that Apple has not nor is there any evidence that remotely suggests that Apple is actually proposing such a system. Not to mention that phones and computers are very different devices as far as Apple sees things.

That's why we present it as a hypothetical scenario.

It doesn't matter if "phones & computers are very different devices as far as Apple sees things."

It's the process & app development that we're talkin' about. That's why it's a hypothetical scenario to aid in our arguments.

w00master

[observer]

If you look at what they actually say, it's not "Apple rejected...", it's "Google says that Apple rejected ...", and it's based on a telephone conversation between executives. Not a written rejection, and not from the person(s) doing the evaluation.

It wouldn't surprise me if both companies have given truthful accounts to the government investigation -- Apple thinking it gave a tentative rejection subject to further review, and Google hearing it as a final rejection.

[brockm]

I told you all, weeks ago: this is a plain and simple case of Apple not wanting it's customers to get confused. Phil Schiller is standing up for YOU. He's protecting YOU from the ensuing confusion that Google would have so nonchalantly introduced to your life.

Show some respect for the hard work Phil does and preventing your confusion!

[CWallace]

A great deal of developers seem to be very confident in building really great applications for the iPhone right now.

I have many applications on my iPhone and none of them fart and only two of them are games.



I agree that a more cohesive and coherent application review and approval process would benefit Apple, the developers and the consumers. But what has helped make Apple successful and allowed it to recover from it's general irrelevance in the 1990s is a concerted effort to deliver a tailored user experience across the board - hardware, software and support.

Apple has evolved, even if it is not as quickly or as completely as some desire / demand. I'd rather err on protecting the user experience (and, by extension, the user) and take a bit longer to reach "utopia" instead of just barreling forward and hoping the momentum will keep things on course.

[pdjudd]

All this for:

FFC (dad): Alright who is responsible for this mess?

[sons]

Apple: He did it!

Google: No he did it!


.
.
.

This would go on forever....
More like:

FCC: Ok? Who did it?
Apple: Not me. We didn't reject anything
AT&T: Not me.
Google: We don't really know but we think it was Apple.

[shindailoversDF]

It was a buggy application anyway and just more of Google "there's a webservice for everything on earth" nonsense. :rolleyes:

[*LTD*]

You mean like the tight, integrated, and controlled movement the "drones" did following the man on the screen?

It's people who are happy with Apple. Yes, there are people who love this comapny's products. It's just enthusiasm and excitement. Judgin by the absolutel garbage Redmond has been rolling out for the last decade, it doesn't take a whole lot.

Apple fans are to be expected. MS fans are an irregularity. MS doesn't inspire that kind of confidence and enthusiasm for a reason. WTF is there to be interested and excited about? Another lousy version of Windows to replace the previous (or worse, failed) version? More Office-ware? Word? Excel? Live Mail? The Zune? More half-assed attempts at aping Apple? NOD32? Cool! Another verion of xyz Antivirus!

[occamsrazor]

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.

So the fact that the iPhone is a great product overrall, with a great UI, means its users should just shut up and live with whatever Apple gives us, we shouldn't complain when things we want are not possible/allowed? This is so far from the Mac "ethos" I don't even know how to respond to it. If no-one had complained incessantly about the MBP, we'd never have the matt screens back.
The idea that if you don't like what is currently given to you, you either lump it or leave, runs contrary to the whole Mac ethos from Day 1.
As for inflating the incident, I agree that this is just one app, my points aren't particularly directed at the Google Voice app.... but it's just one example of an ongoing trend at Apple to move away from it's original ideals towards something that does not, actually, look after the interests of its users. You can see it in so many aspects of the Mac/iPhone/AppleTV etc... and that makes me sad.

[aristotle]

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.

[iOrlando]

Apple just responded:
-

Apple says does not agree with all statements made by Google in their FCC letter related to Google voice iphone app
Says has not rejected Google <GOOG.O> voice iphone app, still talking to Google

[w00master]

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.

I'm sick and tired of all of the APOLOGISTS. Boo fricken hoo to you guys.

GV isn't there to save you money. It's there so you can manage your various phones and mobile devices better. Huge difference.

w00master

[pdjudd]

That's why it's a hypothetical scenario to aid in our arguments.

w00master

What good is talking about hypothetical going to do. We might as well ask what would happen if Apple halted all App Store development. Hypotheticals only have meaning if they are somewhat plausible. You are trying to introduce a scenario that only has a tenuous relationship. The two are not comparable at all.

[yg17]

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.

Vonage and Skype have apps for the iPhone. There are many VoIP apps that were approved.

[hanpa]

The answer from Google is very clear regarding how different the App Store and Android Market work. It's also completely obvious how transparent Apple´s explanations are. "User confusion" = no competition

I certainly hope that the competition from Android eventually will cause Apple to change. And also that the "non-agreement" between AT&T and Apple will become true and not just a bad excuse for a bad policy.

[w00master]

What good is talking about hypothetical going to do. We might as well ask what would happen if Apple halted all App Store development. Hypotheticals only have meaning if they are somewhat plausible. You are trying to introduce a scenario that only has a tenuous relationship. The two are not comparable at all.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. They are *absolutely* comparable.

Apple controls the OS, hardware for Macs.

Apple controls the OS, hardware for iPhones.

This is why we use the scenario. Again, if Apple decided to control all distribution of apps on the Mac platform (which they totally could), how would you feel if you couldn't install an alternative browser on the Mac?

w00master

[Mark Booth]

Apple is being proactive. Thing is, when you want to maintain the user experience, you need to keep things tight, integrated, and controlled.

Ah ha! That explains why I can download a dozen different FART applications for my iPhone! :rolleyes:

Gotta keep that user experience TIGHT! :p

Mark

[madmaxmedia]

Apple delivering products people want, consistently, when no one else seems to be doing it. Apple is being proactive. Thing is, when you want to maintain the user experience, you need to keep things tight, integrated, and controlled.

Yeah, but can't you see the irony? ;) Is that how you want your government too? Tight, integrated, and controlled? Or would you rather have sexy hammer-throwing girl?

[occamsrazor]

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.

And that would be bad for the people who buy Apple's products.... how????

[FakeWozniak]

Google is evil, evil, evil.

I read the request from the FCC to Google and it looks like it was written by a Google employee.

And WTF is the FCC doing caring about applications for a particular cell phone? Do they care what applications are are allowed on other phones? It's clearly targetted at Apple and not the equipment manufacturers. They are only responsible for the POTS network and the airwaves, not applications on the phone

Notice how ATT is clearly left out of the fight... Ask yourself what the motivation is for the FCC to investigate this other then Evil Google getting all pissy about Apple rejecting them.

Google is evil.

[CylonGlitch]

I have nothing wrong with an approval process; and in fact, I think it is required. I do wish Apple had MORE people working it to move things along quicker. That being said, I do wish that they would only reject applications based on issues with the app. Reject if there is some spyware in it, or it is a virus, or stealing your contact information, or doing something funky to the system, or just damn buggy. I would prefer it if they stayed away from letting the consumers have options. If you download the GV app, most likely you know what you're getting and you're not going to be confused between it and the normal phone app. Let the customers decide. If their app is better and people want to buy it, great. If they start bitching at Apple, maybe they should update their phone app.

Now, if all of that is said and done, and every thing looks good; I still think that AT&T's contract may have a heavy hand in some of the decision making. Such as, don't allow apps that use more bandwidth then xx bytes/sec or whatever. I can see the fine print of the contract saying something like that.

Maybe AT&T is right, they never told Apple they had to reject the GV app. Maybe Apple read their AT&T contract and realized that if they didn't reject it, they would be in violation of that contract. Thus AT&T could have cause the rejection without telling Apple to do it. But if this is the case, couldn't Apple just say that? Unless, of course, their contract says they can't. We don't know.

Anyway, I say let competion reign and see who wins. Keep the approval process but reject based on threat not on content.

[*LTD*]

Fixed.

All of you that are OK with Apple disallowing GV seem to like to be told what you can and can not do. How did you all get so submissive?

This is the Apple way. You get to play in Apple's garden, and if you don't like it you can go elsewhere. It's just that simple.

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.

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

If I'm unhappy with Apple I can always vote with my wallet and take my business elsewhere. I choose to allow Apple to "tell me what to do." Yes, I'm fine with it, and so far they've done just fine by me.

Enough with the geek tears, already.

[hanpa]

Vonage and Skype have apps for the iPhone. There are many VoIP apps that were approved.

Skype calls are not allowed on a cellular connection, only on Wi-Fi. This is because the user would otherwise be very confused... :rolleyes:

[madmaxmedia]

I continue not to give a crap about Google's hurt feelings. I like that apple keeps control over the device and the entire user experience, the speed, the responsiveness, the whole look and feel. I like it because I have a phone which works in a consistent way, which feels like it was designed, not bodged together at an all-night pizza party. Innovation and design are not the same thing.

If the iPhone falls behind other offerings because they over-restrict creativity, then I won't buy another one when my contract is up and I'll switch and if enough other people do so, apple will change or lose (they can change, the appstore grew rapidly when the the 'only webapps for iphone' idea proved to be a flop).

It's their phone, it's their platform, they designed it, if they want it to have a certain consistency and be used in a given way and have core functionality restricted to the way they saw it, well that's their right.

It's not about right and wrong, I agree it's their 'right' since those are the terms of the App Store.

But is it a good decision to reject these Google apps? Most all of us think no. As you say, you may or may not buy an iPhone next time around based on the various product offerings. Does rejecting Google apps make the iPhone better or worse? Most say worse...

[benpatient]

I'm going to laugh my ass off when Google decides to block the iphone ports that connect to google maps...

I hope you guys like mapquest, because you can bet you won't be getting bing maps!

i hear mapquest is SOOOO awesome.

hahaha.

I can see the press release right now:

"Google maps access has been removed from the iphone because the iphone duplicates functionality already found in computers. Bitches"

[*LTD*]

Yeah, but can't you see the irony? ;) Is that how you want your government too? Tight, integrated, and controlled? Or would you rather have sexy hammer-throwing girl?

One has nothing to do with the other.

[shindailoversDF]

If Google makes an app that takes away from the spotlight of the iPhone, and I were Apple, I'd reject it too. On the flip side, if a dev makes an app that would put the iPhone in negative light, I'd also reject it. I think Apple is in the right for wanting to tightly control what apps are allowed to reflect on its reputation. While some may see it as Apple becoming "the villain" as Microsoft did, I disagree. It's Apple taking care of it's customers, and I think some of you out there are just too jaded to see that. Just my two cents. :apple:

[outphase]

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.

Isn't that what you are trying to do? You are trying to tell those who care to not care because it's not important to you.

[aristotle]

I'm sick and tired of all of the APOLOGISTS. Boo fricken hoo to you guys.

GV isn't there to save you money. It's there so you can manage your various phones and mobile devices better. Huge difference.

w00master
Your various mobile devices as in mobile phones? Why would you have more than one in your control? Wouldn't it be easier to manage by having one device and cheaper too? Do you always have to be within reach for all of your various numbers?

[pdjudd]

More companies should sue Apple for rejecting their products.

Please cite the terms that state that Apple guarantees that they will distribute all apps that are submitted to them. In other words, what can they be sued for?

Apple should really be more of finding reasons to accept applications vs. Finding Reasons to Reject them.

Possibly. I still have no reason to doubt that Apple approves far more apps than they reject.

[Apple reminds me of elementary school where after a quiz you would give you paper to an other student who would grade your paper. Where kids would take joy in marking their peers papers as wrong. I remember getting an answer wrong because my C looked like an L (On a multiple choice quiz of A, B, C) This is how Apple seems to be about accepting their apps. Lets find a reason to reject vs. Reasons to accept the product.

I don't see it like that (and for what it's worth, the system you described never happened at any elementary school that I attended). It doesn't really work as an analogy though. First thing, we only hear about the failures. Obviously of a sample size in which there is not a 100% rate of success, some people are going to fail. Second, the scenario of student grading doesn't work - App Store rejections are done by Apple employees - not fellow developers. Third, the kind of exam we would be talking about is more like trying to grade an essay, not a multiple choice exam. Applications are not something that can be looked at the same way and get the same output.

[madmaxmedia]

This. This is the reality. It might be hard to see through all the geek-tears around here, but this is it.

Why is it not okay for people to voice their disapproval about Apple's App Store policies?

We get it- that's Apple's MO. Some of us think they are going to far, or at the very least not being consistent in enforcing their policies.

You think it's okay, that's fine too. But why are you criticizing other people for simply having a different opinion?

[VoR]

This is the Apple way. You get to play in Apple's garden, and if you don't like it you can go elsewhere. It's just that simple.

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.


Rather arrogantly I'd like to say that I think the average consumer is an idiot, they're just buying things like the iphone because they've seen it on TV.
Absolutely noone that I know who owns an iphone has any idea what they're missing out by having a locked down ecosystem and app store compared to what potential the device has.

[Voidness]

I have a question. How many of those complaining about Google Voice's rejection actually have access to the service? Isn't it US-only and invite-only at the moment?

Anyway, something's not right here. Apple wouldn't reject Google Voice without AT&T's influence, as Apple have nothing to gain from the rejection. On the other hand, they allowed Rhapsody and Spotify to the App Store, direct competitors to iTunes.

[madmaxmedia]

One has nothing to do with the other.

You're right, I was being facetious.

I do agree that this is not a government issue, not something that Apple can be forced to do one way or the other.

I still think Apple is going about this wrong, but hey in the end we will all vote with our pocketbooks.

[djdole]

Rejecting ANY app because it duplicates Apple functionality is a conflict of interest. I REALLY hope Apple get the smack-down for this, because if allowed to continue this will not only hamper app innovation and competition, but also hurt Apple by putting them in a position where they may believe similar actions (but with other products) in the future will be acceptable (which may lead to worse legal litigation).
If Apple is forced to learn their lesson now with this arguably trivial instance, they'll be more than likely ready to fairly conduct themselves in the larger market in the future (such as if they actually open their OS up for install on PCs).

Till then, Apple's fear of competing software doesn't surprise me one bit.
It seems that, more and more, with every act Apple displays less and less confidence in the quality of their own software in comparison to possible competitors. They seem to prefer to artificially create monopolistic scenarios and muscle-out competition rather than have the possibility that someone elsewhere may in fact be able to create a better piece of software than what they make.

"Oh noes! People may not want to use Shitfari if given an alternative! So we CAN'T allow Firefox or Opera on the iPhone!"

[mds]

I have to agree with some of the anti-Apple sentiment here. I'm a long time supporter (owned an Apple IIc when I was a kid) and use Macs in my work and at home every day. I'm not a fanboy (I use PCs as well, own a Pre (and like it), etc), but I think Apple makes great products.

It is troublesome to see how Apple has gone from underdog to behemoth. I guess its just the nature of business...when you're the underdog you extol it as a virtue, when you're on top you through your wait around to stay on top...sad to see Apple spending so much time trying to squeeze competition out in the courtroom rather than just continue innovating...

[*LTD*]

Isn't that what you are trying to do? You are trying to tell those who care to not care because it's not important to you.

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.

[w00master]

I have to agree with some of the anti-Apple sentiment here. I'm a long time supporter (owned an Apple IIc when I was a kid) and use Macs in my work and at home every day. I'm not a fanboy (I use PCs as well, own a Pre (and like it), etc), but I think Apple makes great products.

It is troublesome to see how Apple has gone from underdog to behemoth. I guess its just the nature of business...when you're the underdog you extol it as a virtue, when you're on top you through your wait around to stay on top...sad to see Apple spending so much time trying to squeeze competition out in the courtroom rather than just continue innovating...

Well said... I'd like to remind the Apologists on this Apple Ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oAB83Z1ydE

I love how Apple is "Thinking Different." :rolleyes: More like thinking like Microsoft.


w00master

[w00master]

Except that you don't see me whining ad infinitum

No, we see you apologizing for Apple... ad infinitum.

[madmaxmedia]

It's true, and of course applies to pretty much any public corporation out there.

At the end of the day, it's about the shareholders and EPS. The leadership comes and goes, but earnings is the bottom line. Often the bottom line coincides with delivering great products and satisfying customers, but it is not always a 1 to 1 correlation.

I think it's best not to get 'religious' about any company. You can love a product and more or less love a company, but at the end of the day financial considerations are what drive a public corporation. I don't consider it good or bad, it just is (a private corporation of course can be driven entirely by the whims of the owners.)

t is troublesome to see how Apple has gone from underdog to behemoth. I guess its just the nature of business...when you're the underdog you extol it as a virtue, when you're on top you through your wait around to stay on top...sad to see Apple spending so much time trying to squeeze competition out in the courtroom rather than just continue innovating...

[*LTD*]

Till then, Apple's fear of competing software doesn't surprise me one bit.
It seems that, more and more, with every act Apple displays less and less confidence in the quality of their own software in comparison to possible competitors. They see to prefer to artificially create monopolistic scenarios and muscle-out competition rather than have the possibility that someone elsewhere may in fact be able to create a better piece of software than what they make.
"Oh noes! People may not want to use Shitfari if given an alternative! So we CAN'T allow Firefox or Opera on the iPhone!"

Ok.

So let's see all the vastly superior Android, BB, and WinMo offerings. Where are all the "competitors"? Rogers is marketing the living daylights out of Android up here in Canada and no one's buying. And it isn't because of Rogers. I'm told it's because of the iPhone. Yes, the restrictive, closed jewel of Apple's dictatorial crown.

And everyone wants one.

[twoodcc]

he said she said....enough already

[pdjudd]

Sorry, but I completely disagree. They are *absolutely* comparable.

Apple controls the OS, hardware for Macs.

Apple controls the OS, hardware for iPhones.

This is why we use the scenario. Again, if Apple decided to control all distribution of apps on the Mac platform (which they totally could), how would you feel if you couldn't install an alternative browser on the Mac?

w00master

If you look at things from that basic analysis, sure you are going to find comparisons. I never doubted that. But you cannot deny that the development of OSX applications versus iPhone development is very different. Focus on the differences instead of looking for similarities. Apple takes a different approach to the Mac as a whole versus the iPhone because they are targeted differently. Not to mention the technologies that are involved in the two systems are handled differently.

You might as well ask what if Google decided to take a restricted approach to Chrome OS? Or how about what if Microsoft purchased Android and change its licensing? What does development of OSX have to do with the iPhone? they are similar platforms, but what happens on one doesn't necessarily translate to the other. In fact Apple's behavior with OSX suggest the exact opposite happens (I refer to the open sourcing of Grand Central Dispatch)

[TuffLuffJimmy]

you don't see me whining ad infinitum about something Then what have you been doing this whole thread? :confused: please reread your own posts.

[hanpa]

Rather arrogantly I'd like to say that I think the average consumer is an idiot, they're just buying things like the iphone because they've seen it on TV.
Absolutely noone that I know who owns an iphone has any idea what they're missing out by having a locked down ecosystem and app store compared to what potential the device has.

Well most iPhone owners outside of the US do know what they're missing or jailbreak their devices to rectify the problem. I see so much conservatism from US citizens in this forum but in a way I understand the reason for this. In most other countries we have fully working 3g cellular connections with 7.2 Mit/s or more that we can use to whatever we like. AT&T are just starting to deploy 3g in their network and also MMS that was introduced here in Sweden in 2002. AT&T and the US is stuck in the 20th century but the rest of the world is not. But the rest of the world suffers from the restrictions that Apple have set due to the "non-agreement" between them and AT&T.

[occamsrazor]

I have a question. How many of those complaining about Google Voice's rejection actually have access to the service? Isn't it US-only and invite-only at the moment?

I'll make no apologies about saying I don't live in the US, and therefore don't have access to Google Voice. I'd love for it to be available outside the US but it isn't. I use a virtual PBX for my VOIP calls (pbxes.org) now, but the functionality of Google Voice is impressive. But as an owner and professional user of four Macs does that mean I shouldn't care about what the company is doing with its products?

[madmaxmedia]

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.

I think this is a very good point. I mean everyone is pointing to the 1984 commercial and saying "Oh the irony!" (I did it too). But really, when has Apple ever really been an open company? One of the basic precepts of its computer operation has been control of both hardware and operating system, to largely positive effect.

[w00master]

If you look at things from that basic analysis, sure you are going to find comparisons. I never doubted that. But you cannot deny that the development of OSX applications versus iPhone development is very different. Focus on the differences instead of looking for similarities. Apple takes a different approach to the Mac as a whole versus the iPhone because they are targeted differently. Not to mention the technologies that are involved in the two systems are handled differently.

You might as well ask what if Google decided to take a restricted approach to Chrome OS? Or how about what if Microsoft purchased Android and change its licensing? What does development of OSX have to do with the iPhone? they are similar platforms, but what happens on one doesn't necessarily translate to the other. In fact Apple's behavior with OSX suggest the exact opposite happens (I refer to the open sourcing of Grand Central Dispatch)

Again, this is why we provide those examples. I am not saying that it will happen, nor am I saying that Apple w/ Mac OS X is any less open than Microsoft. However, Apple has said that the iPod Touch/iPhone is a "handheld computer." If it is a "handheld computer" why is it I can't run the apps that I need and want on my "handheld computer." This is why the scenario was presented in the first place. That's where our attentions and our arguments lie.

I personally feel that Apple should stay out of what an app's content is and concentrate more on what true violations to the app store really are. This would streamline their process as well as give app developers confidence in building truly awesome apps.

w00master

[zombitronic]

You wouldn't want the government involved when Apple is being anticompetitive? Why wouldn't you want the consumer protected?

Are you claiming that Apple is being anti-competitive? Are you aware that you, as a consumer, are able to purchase other phones?

I don't agree with all these "consumer protection" claims. It seems that today's consumer has caught the entitlement bug. Just because something that you wish for doesn't exist with a certain manufacturers product or a certain suppliers service does not make said product or service anti-competitive. Do some research and buy another product/service.

Apple, as an American company, has the right to operate in any way they see fit as long as they operate within legal boundaries. I fail to see how rejecting an App is encroaching on your rights as a consumer. Your right, as a consumer, is to purchase and use the product and service pair that makes you content. This is not fanboy, apologist logic. This is simply capitalism.

[slapguts]

I have a question. How many of those complaining about Google Voice's rejection actually have access to the service? Isn't it US-only and invite-only at the moment?

Anyway, something's not right here. Apple wouldn't reject Google Voice without AT&T's influence, as Apple have nothing to gain from the rejection. On the other hand, they allowed Rhapsody and Spotify to the App Store, direct competitors to iTunes.

I do. I requested an invite from Google and received a reply a couple days later. I'd really like to start using it.

I run a small business internationally, and would like to use my google voice number as a contact. Just to keep my phone from ringing at 3am, with a customer from Japan. Right now, the only contact option I give is email, which can be a little slow compared to a simple phone call.

[FakeWozniak]

It's not like GV removes the Phone app and inserts itself in its place.

Seems the only folks who know what GV does ON THE iPHONE are the Google developers and the Apple review committee. Anything else is pure speculation and should be ignored.

My philosophy is that if you don't like the store because they won't sell your stuff, touch cookies for you because it's their choice what to sell and what not to for whatever reason they want to give you.

[Masquerade]

Your various mobile devices as in mobile phones? Why would you have more than one in your control? Wouldn't it be easier to manage by having one device and cheaper too? Do you always have to be within reach for all of your various numbers?

Google is taking the initiative (money and investigation) to open a service that simply will replace the current mobile communications scenarios.
Of course it wont bring only many advantages for your stereotyped
characters but for many people that can benefit in various ways for it.

Also i think that you're getting the wrong ideia. You can redirect your google number to any mobile or landline phone, also you can get emails or sms if you're out of these networks but you have a internet (like a wifi spot). It's quite impressive since this technology will be scalabe to more devices (the protocol can accept video etc).

[jaw04005]

What's funny about all this is Google is not even pushing it. They have too much at stake to make a stink about Google Voice.

There's Google Search which is embedded in Safari on the iPhone, Mac and Windows.

There's YouTube which is included in QuickTime X, iMovie '09, iPhone, Nano, Apple TV, etc.

There's Google Calendar which is supported by iCal natively in Snow Leopard.

There's Gmail which is an automatic option on the iPhone and Apple Mail.

There's Google Maps which is used on the iPhone and from within iPhoto and Address Book.

I wouldn't put it past Jobs to pull all of those out in one swoop — BING! That's likely why they requested confidentiality.

[bozzykid]

Exchange is a different beast since the supported infrastructure tends to be on servers either owned by, or controlled by the end user or the company that they work for. Users typically get exchange access granted from the company side of things and the degree of control is very different.

Not to mention, that you need to have access to an exchange server with ActiveSync to actually be of any use. Its a corporate email system.

And Google supports it too. However, it still doesn't matter since the app never sync'd the contacts to Google according to every report I have read about the app.

[*LTD*]

Well for those of you that want GV, there's Android, for example, or whatever other platform offers GV and all the other goodies you can't get with the iPhone. Dump your iPhone and switch to a more open platform. It'll probably cost you less, too.

If one platform doesn't have the features/apps you want, then just switch to another. It's just that simple.

Any takers?

[Scooterman1]

This sure wreaks of the lawsuit against Microsoft for having unfair advantages with it's competitors by having the App development in the same facility as the Core. Oh well.....

[FakeWozniak]

Great... so if Apple decided that all 3rd party apps for Mac OS X had to go through an Apple "approval process" you'd be cool with that too?

If there was an expectation that the computer and operating system be able to make 911 calls to save our lives, then I think we would both want some enforcement of quality/stability.

I think Apple and ATT would be sued, class action style, if the phone was unable to make phone calls reliably.

[occamsrazor]

How about Apple open the AppStore wide-open, allowing all apps without approval. Then each time you install an app that hasn't been approved by APPLE, you get a warning "This app has not been approved or tested by Apple, and may ruin your Apple User Experience. Install at your own risk. Accept/Decline? Are you Sure?"
Those wanting the guaranteed "Apple User Experience" can set a preference to not show any unapproved apps at all, and will have things the way they are now. Those who'd like to be treated in more adult fashion and install whatever they want would also be happy. Lots and lots of happy iPhone owners, sounds like a good thing for Apple I'd have thought...

So do the apple-apologists have a problem with this setup?

[glap1922]

Well for those of you that want GV, there's Android, for example, or whatever other platform offers GV and all the other goodies you can't get with the iPhone. Dump your iPhone and switch to a more open platform. It'll probably cost you less, too.

If one platform doesn't have the features/apps you want, then just switch to another. It's just that simple.

Any takers?

I am getting an android phone as soon as my iphone contact is up. I purchased an iphone and mobile me when the first iphone was fairly new, then upgrade to the 3g. Since then I have come to realize that googles mail and calendar are far superior to apples. I am letting my mobileme run out and once i can find an android phone i like on Verizon or ATT I going to switch. I would prefer not to because I love how the iphone sync with my mac, but considering 95% of the apps are useless to me (the only ones that are useful can be easily replicated from a web browser) I really don't see the point.

[FoxyKaye]

Apple's making friends with everyone lately, isn't it?

[*LTD*]

How about Apple open the AppStore wide-open, allowing all apps without approval. Then each time you install an app that hasn't been approved by APPLE, you get a warning "This app has not been approved or tested by Apple, and may ruin your Apple User Experience. Install at your own risk. Accept/Decline? Are you Sure?"
Those wanting the guaranteed "Apple User Experience" can set a preference to not show any unapproved apps at all, and will have things the way they are now. Those who'd like to be treated in more adult fashion and install whatever they want would also be happy. Lots and lots of happy iPhone owners, sounds like a good thing for Apple I'd have thought...

So do the apple-apologists have a problem with this setup?

Somehow I don't think you've thought through the consequences of that.

[Plutonius]

Apple has gone so far off course I don't think they even realise it, or if they do, that's even worse... I can't even watch the 1984 ad any more, it's so far removed from the Apple of today.

Apple is a business who's main goal is to make money for it's stockholders. Apple is no better or worse then Microsoft and other businesses.

[Bubba Satori]

Again the government getting its dirty paws into how a private company must operate. Fabulous.

Yes, it's called enforcing the law. :rolleyes:

It applies to Microsoft AND Apple.

[*LTD*]

I am getting an android phone as soon as my iphone contact is up. I purchased an iphone and mobile me when the first iphone was fairly new, then upgrade to the 3g. Since then I have come to realize that googles mail and calendar are far superior to apples. I am letting my mobileme run out and once i can find an android phone i like on Verizon or ATT I going to switch. I would prefer not to because I love how the iphone sync with my mac, but considering 95% of the apps are useless to me (the only ones that are useful can be easily replicated from a web browser) I really don't see the point.

Good! Someone without a skewed sense of entitlement.

Not happy you're leaving, but I'm happy you're choosing to act in a sensible manner.

[Plutonius]

I am getting an android phone as soon as my iphone contact is up. I purchased an iphone and mobile me when the first iphone was fairly new, then upgrade to the 3g. Since then I have come to realize that googles mail and calendar are far superior to apples. I am letting my mobileme run out and once i can find an android phone i like on Verizon or ATT I going to switch. I would prefer not to because I love how the iphone sync with my mac, but considering 95% of the apps are useless to me (the only ones that are useful can be easily replicated from a web browser) I really don't see the point.

People are foolish if they buy things based on name. Buy the product that's best for you. If that means buying an android phone, then buy an android phone.

[pdjudd]

Again, this is why we provide those examples. I am not saying that it will happen, nor am I saying that Apple w/ Mac OS X is any less open than Microsoft. However, Apple has said that the iPod Touch/iPhone is a "handheld computer." If it is a "handheld computer" why is it I can't run the apps that I need and want on my "handheld computer." This is why the scenario was presented in the first place. That's where our attentions and our arguments lie.

You call it a computer. I call the iPhone a Phone and the Touch a portable music player on steroids. Thats why I am decrying the comparisons. What good is is discussing them if we cannot agree on the terms. If you want to bring up hypothetical with development of the iPhone and development as a while, keep the comparisons on par. I suggest we compare Apple to Apples and keep hypothetical into areas that remain reliant. Talking about OS development with the iPhone is like trying to compare a small garden project with the big farm next door. There are similarities, but the differences are larger.

I personally feel that Apple should stay out of what an app's content is and concentrate more on what true violations to the app store really are. This would streamline their process as well as give app developers confidence in building truly awesome apps.

w00master

Perhaps. I won't argue that point since it is not ours to make for the most part. I like my iPhone too much to go to another platform out there. I don't run the train station nor do I care about the operation of the trains. As long as I can get on the train and it takes me where I want to go, I am happy.

[nikhsub1]

This is the Apple way. You get to play in Apple's garden, and if you don't like it you can go elsewhere. It's just that simple.

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.

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

If I'm unhappy with Apple I can always vote with my wallet and take my business elsewhere. I choose to allow Apple to "tell me what to do." Yes, I'm fine with it, and so far they've done just fine by me.

Enough with the geek tears, already.
You are just a lemming and have no business in this conversation as you have stated you only do what you are told. What does a copy of windows have to do with the iphone anyway? Geek tears? LOL? I like to decide what apps I like for myself, not have someone do it for me. If this concept is so hard for you to understand you need serious help.

[occamsrazor]

Somehow I don't think you've thought through the consequences of that.

Please tell me them... because I don't see how it would be any different at all to what I currently do with my MacBook Pro......

[stuffradio]

All the Apple apologists would keep ragging on Microsoft if they tried something like this. It's disgusting how much Apple gets away with because of the brainwashed user base.

I'm all for holding Microsoft accountable to any wrong doing they do as a corporation. I'm also even more for making Apple change their ways. As an iPhone developer, I paid them money to get access to the Apple store. Every time there is a new major release, or every few months there is a new contract you have to agree to. If you don't, they take your money.

It's like putting a gun to my head and saying accept.

[lkrupp]

Apple has gone so far off course I don't think they even realise it, or if they do, that's even worse... I can't even watch the 1984 ad any more, it's so far removed from the Apple of today.

Then can we assume that you will be selling all of your Apple equipment, leaving the platform, and will never be heard from in these forums again? Please tell us this is true. This goes for every single one of the wagging tongues posting here. If you are so outraged at the "new" Apple why are you still using the company's products? Why haven't you moved to a platform and company that satisfies your sense of ethical behavior. Until you do that then your protests are hypocritical in the extreme. You have chosen to believe Google's statement over Apple's. Why is that exactly? Apparently you think so little of Apple yet you continue to use their products. This is cognitive dissonance in the classic sense of the term and it is mentally unhealthy. Move on to something else if you can't stand Apple. It's the only way to solve your ethical dilemma.

[sjo]

I continue not to give a crap about Google's hurt feelings. I like that apple keeps control over the device and the entire user experience, the speed, the responsiveness, the whole look and feel. I like it because I have a phone which works in a consistent way, which feels like it was designed, not bodged together at an all-night pizza party. Innovation and design are not the same thing.


if you like it, great. no one is taking it away from you. you do not have install the google apps, you do not need to know anything about them. just ignore.

but someone else might want them, is that really beyond your fanboy imagination?? incredible...

[CWallace]

The Applications Developer Agreement makes it clear that Apple has the right to reject applications that they feel duplicates existing functionality provided by Apple. Those agreements have not been ruled illegal, so Apple is within their legal rights to deny said applications.

I say let the marketplace speak.

Google's Android platform is said to be totally open and will allow people to develop any application they wish for it - including adware and malware. If the market is willing to take the bad with the good of an open platform, Android will have an installed userbase of scores of millions of units in a handful of years and it's Application Store will have scores of thousands of applications.

If the Android platform eclipses the iPhone platform, then Apple will either have to respond or risk the iPhone ending up being the next Newton and see users and developers abandon it for Android.

But until that happens, I don't wish Apple to put me and my data at risk by opening the platform up and relaxing standards. Even if those standards are confusing and inconsistent, so far they've protected me and ensured me a continuous positive user experience since Day 1 of the iPhone. And Apple is working, even if too slowly, to make those standards less confusing and more consistent while still protecting me and maintaining a pleasant user experience.

[atacinus]

I too left the iPhone over this google voice fiasco. I was so excited for google voice that I actually bought an invite before they were more readily available and fell in love with it...despite the fact that I was still waiting on pins and needles for an official app to make it really useful...and then they rejected it. I sold my iPhone 3GS (previously owned both the original and 3g all bought on launch date) within the week and have been using a crappy virgin mobile pay-as-you-go phone waiting for the android HTC Hero to come out...it's coming oct. 11th and I'm going to be the happiest man on the planet! It's good to see that apple really is losing customers over this (although admittedly not that many) - they deserve to - open platforms all the way!

[nikhsub1]

Then can we assume that you will be selling all of your Apple equipment, leaving the platform, and will never be heard from in these forums again? Please tell us this is true. This goes for every single one of the wagging tongues posting here. If you are so outraged at the "new" Apple why are you still using the company's products? Why haven't you moved to a platform and company that satisfies your sense of ethical behavior. Until you do that then your protests are hypocritical in the extreme. You have chosen to believe Google's statement over Apple's. Why is that exactly? Apparently you think so little of Apple yet you continue to use their products. This is cognitive dissonance in the classic sense of the term and it is mentally unhealthy. Move on to something else if you can't stand Apple. It's the only way to solve your ethical dilemma.
So let me get your logic here. If we criticize Apple, we should not use any of their products? Wow. So then if you disagree with your nation's government, you should renounce your citizenship? Your logic is as good as my 3 year old's.

[zombitronic]

Yes, it's called enforcing the law. :rolleyes:

It applies to Microsoft AND Apple.

Please, clearly and concisely describe the law that is being broken.

[crusadernm]

This is BS. Apple is corrupt as hell. No cut n paste, no fm radio, no mms, no bluetooth. Then lo and behold they come out with new phones that add each of these features to get fools to buy a new phone each n everytime.

[CWallace]

All the Apple apologists would keep ragging on Microsoft if they tried something like this.

If Microsoft tried something like this maybe their applications and platforms would not be the mess they are. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/graphics/smilies/scratchchin.gif

[Beric]

Then can we assume that you will be selling all of your Apple equipment, leaving the platform, and will never be heard from in these forums again? Please tell us this is true. This goes for every single one of the wagging tongues posting here. If you are so outraged at the "new" Apple why are you still using the company's products? Why haven't you moved to a platform and company that satisfies your sense of ethical behavior. Until you do that then your protests are hypocritical in the extreme. You have chosen to believe Google's statement over Apple's. Why is that exactly? Apparently you think so little of Apple yet you continue to use their products. This is cognitive dissonance in the classic sense of the term and it is mentally unhealthy. Move on to something else if you can't stand Apple. It's the only way to solve your ethical dilemma.

What if they hate Apple but like its products? :p

[pdjudd]

Yes, it's called enforcing the law. :rolleyes:

It applies to Microsoft AND Apple.

I think one problem is that some people assume that the law is some kind of blunt club that they can apply to anybody who looks at them funny and they don't like. That's why we have people screaming "anti-competitive" "Anti-Trust" "illegal" The FTC will slam them" and other meaningless phrases. It doesn't work like that. As many people know, the government gets involved when the law is being violated or suspects that it is. This is just an inquiringly by the FCC. Just becasue a cop stops by your house to see whats going on with the noise from your party doesn't mean that your being dragged down to central booking in handcuffs and put in front of a judge.

[Compile 'em all]

Apple delivering products people want, consistently, when no one else seems to be doing it. Apple is being proactive. Thing is, when you want to maintain the user experience, you need to keep things tight, integrated, and controlled. Same Apple we saw in 1984, just on a larger scale.

The average user hardly noticed Google Voice when it was an issue, and cares even less today. But they certainly notice the greater benefits of buying in to the Apple ecosystem, as we're seeing.

Small price to pay, really.

Really?

Is that why Steve Jobs said in 2007 that they won't release an SDK because they don't want apps to slow down the iPhone. And then later after the jailbreaking community started creating all sorts of amazing apps and games, Apple decided to release an SDK?

You are right, Apple consistently creates products people want :rolleyes:

[*LTD*]

You are just a lemming and have no business in this conversation as you have stated you only do what you are told. What does a copy of windows have to do with the iphone anyway? Geek tears? LOL? I like to decide what apps I like for myself, not have someone do it for me. If this concept is so hard for you to understand you need serious help.

You're only entitled to as much as Apple, or any other company, chooses to give you.


Really?

Is that why Steve Jobs said in 2007 that they won't release an SDK because they don't want apps to slow down the iPhone. And then later after the jailbreaking community started creating all sorts of amazing apps and games, Apple decided to release an SDK?

You are right, Apple consistently creates products people want :rolleyes:

Apple's numbers don't lie. People who buy are the ones creating those numbers.

Go figure.

[hanpa]

You call it a computer. I call the iPhone a Phone and the Touch a portable music player on steroids. Thats why I am decrying the comparisons. What good is is discussing them if we cannot agree on the terms. If you want to bring up hypothetical with development of the iPhone and development as a while, keep the comparisons on par. I suggest we compare Apple to Apples and keep hypothetical into areas that remain reliant. Talking about OS development with the iPhone is like trying to compare a small garden project with the big farm next door. There are similarities, but the differences are larger.

I bought the iPhone not for the Phone capabilities, I actually don't even use it. I'm using it as small and portable computer to read mail, web functionality, listening to music and some other apps. It's like having an iPod Touch with a 3g cellular modem. I bought it hoping that Apple would change and e.g. approve the Spotify app, which they actually did. I still hope they will allow background execution of third-party apps like Spotify and also full use of 3g cellular for Skype calls, file access, high quality YouTube and video on demand etc. The cellular network in my country can handle it, there is no reason for Apple to not allow this in my country. I think it will happen eventually. If not, I'll buy the Android but right know I think that the iPhone is a better platform that can be even better...

[bbell2000]

I really can't understand how any one can choose sides at this point since it seems to be a big game of he said-she said. Depending on who's telling the truth, the other is probably the bad guy. Maybe they're both lying and they're both the bad guy.

I'm pretty confident that if some software developer hijacked the Windows Desktop or the Blackberry interface or some other visual that's tied to brand identity, both the developer and the owner of that identity would be jumping up and down crying "foul"... the developer complaining about a closed environment and the owner harping about preserving their IP investment.

What did I miss?

[FakeWozniak]

Enough with the apologists, already.


What is an "apologist"? I hope I am wrong, but you seem to be trying hard to introduce a label with negative connotations to categorical repress folks who think a certain way. Please, focus on your supporting arguments instead of heading into the gutter of name calling.

[pdjudd]

All the Apple apologists would keep ragging on Microsoft if they tried something like this. .

Be careful when you are talking about Microsoft. Unlike Apple, they were a convicted monopolist and they still have a sizable market share. Nothing that Apple has comes near Microsoft.

[occamsrazor]

Then can we assume that you will be selling all of your Apple equipment, leaving the platform, and will never be heard from in these forums again? Please tell us this is true. This goes for every single one of the wagging tongues posting here. If you are so outraged at the "new" Apple why are you still using the company's products? Why haven't you moved to a platform and company that satisfies your sense of ethical behavior. Until you do that then your protests are hypocritical in the extreme. You have chosen to believe Google's statement over Apple's. Why is that exactly? Apparently you think so little of Apple yet you continue to use their products. This is cognitive dissonance in the classic sense of the term and it is mentally unhealthy. Move on to something else if you can't stand Apple. It's the only way to solve your ethical dilemma.

No, I'll continue to use my Apple products because overrall I think they're good. I also own a range of other non-Apple products and use them when they are best suited to the task. I use OSX for home computers and some work purposes, Windows for other work purposes that OS X can't replicate, a Linux-based router because it does things I want better than any of Apple's products, and various smartphones of Apple, Symbian and Windows Mobile varieties.
But I will continue to use forums like these to argue how Apple's products can be improved - if people feel that's such a terrible, terrible thing for an owner of a company's product to do, then that's a shame.

[hashholly]

Its pretty simple, If you dont like what Apple is doing with the App Store, or the Iphone in general, get another phone.

[pdjudd]

I bought the iPhone not for the Phone capabilities, I actually don't even use it.

Yea, I can buy a Sports car as an off road vehicle. It wouldn't be a good idea, but I don't go out and think that I bought an ATV or something. When you buy an iPhone, you are getting a Phone first and foremost. Just because it can do other things doesn't change the fact that you have a phone.

[alent1234]

Imho, it doesn't matter in this instance if it's PR or not. This simply bad for consumers.

Rejection b/c of duplication of features. Please, give me a break.

Does calculator apps ring any bells? How about the Vonage app? How about all those VOIP apps?

It's pathetic.


i don't see any scientific functions in the built in calculator that comes with the iphone. and there is always the SDK agreement that says you can't make anything to compete with Apple/AT&T

[TuffLuffJimmy]

i don't see any scientific functions in the built in calculator that comes with the iphone. and there is always the SDK agreement that says you can't make anything to compete with Apple/AT&T

Did you try rotating your phone?

Sure many calculators expand the iPhone's own capabilities. This is the same with Google Voice, it would just expand on the phone's abilities.

[pdjudd]

Its pretty simple, If you dont like what Apple is doing with the App Store, or the Iphone in general, get another phone.

People in general have this notion that they can have their cake and eat it too. They want an iPhone AND they want to do X. It befuddles me to point out that Apple does not offer that nor did they ever say that they can or will accommodate everybody with this particular product.

Yes, I can understand that realization of this can be hard for people, but thats how things are presented. Vote with your wallet and let the market decide who will win. Remember, one companies failures is an opportunity for success by somebody else.

[hanpa]

Yea, I can buy a Sports car as an off road vehicle. It wouldn't be a good idea, but I don't go out and think that I bought an ATV or something. When you buy an iPhone, you are getting a Phone first and foremost. Just because it can do other things doesn't change the fact that you have a phone.

That´s not correct. I know several iPhone users that use it in the same way as I do. I might use the phone part later but right know I have another phone that my company makes me use. I understand your point, you probably live in the US and don't have the 3g cellular capabilities that we have here in Sweden. If there was an iPod Touch with 3g (iPhone without phone) with lower lost than the iPhone, I'd have consider buying that instead.

[FearNo1]

I agree. How can apple fanboys defend the draconian tactics from apple/at+t?? This is worse than the crap M$ did with windows...

I'm glad the FTC has a longer attention span than you do. Hopefully this will force Apple to open up a bit by the time this is all over. And hopefully it will be with minimum kicking and screaming from Apple. Avoid the spectacle and open up already.

[RazHyena]

The average user hardly noticed Google Voice when it was an issue, and cares even less today. But they certainly notice the greater benefits of buying in to the Apple ecosystem, as we're seeing.

Small price to pay, really.

MAYBE in your little world, but others have taken notice far before you did.


As for this article, who is surprised? Didn't we already assume this is what happened in the first place? :o

[*LTD*]

Its pretty simple, If you dont like what Apple is doing with the App Store, or the Iphone in general, get another phone.

The problem seems to be wanting your cake and eating it too.

People love everything about the iPhone, but want a couple of things a certain way - or else. That's fine, but when a sense of entitlement enters into it (that will at some point clash with company imperatives), tears are the inevitable result.

This goes for anything, really. At some point Apple's closed and controlled system is going to cause some issues. Thankfully, they're minor for the most part. It's inevitable. this goes for any company. But there's a costs vs benefits analysis we all need to make. In light of what we're getting overall, I see no point in vilifying Apple over this continuously, especially when there is so little support for it outside these forums. It really doesn't affect my overall experience with the company's products, and I think the same can be said for a lot of users.

[adamdodson]

One thing I don't get, if Apple keeps saying it duplicates the core function of the phone app, how is the RingCentral Mobile app still in the app store? It is another phone app that I use daily that works almost identical to my GV Mobile app does, save the SMS feature and the uploading of contacts. RingCentral is the same company who made the AT&T Virtual Receptionist app, so that doesn't look good in my eyes.

[nkawtg72]

i don't see that this news really changes anything.

googles own letter says that a person can still take advantage of GoogleVoice through a call in service. a user is just limited in the functionality. so really theyre just complaining that that don't have a springboard for bringing better features to their users. i'm sorry, i thought that's why they developed the Android, to compete with Apple's business model and have a SUPPOSED open market telecommunications device.

on that note, i also find it interesting that in one part of their letter they say they DON'T review and reject on the basis of CONTENT or FUNCTIONALITY. then at the bottom of the letter they contradict that by saying that if someone reports a violation to the terms of service they will review the app, and reject it, and use the example of ADULT CONTENT. didnt they just say they dont restrict content?! if that were true, wouldnt that mean porn would be allowed because it is content, and we all know you can go to the integrated web browser on the android and get to it that way. what else would they be willing to restrict, or do restrict?

seems to me Google is playing the same game with the Android as Apple is playing with the iPhone, just on a different ball field with slightly different rules.

i'll say the same thing about Google and the Android that i say about Apple and the iPhone. it's their device, they can do with it as they want.

my iPhone has performed exactly as Apple said it would at the time i purchased it, and it has even gained additional functionality as a result of Apple continuing to support it after that sale. and to that last point, despite what some would like to believe, Apple makes no guarantee that they will ever continue to bring additional functionality or features to a device after the sale.

i know a lot of you will call me submissive or an Apple apologist or a FANBOY :eek::eek:. go right ahead, because i'll just call you ignorant and uninformed. anyone who buys an iPhone/iPod knows what its abilities are, Apple isn't hiding anything, and has documented quite extensively the terms of service to its buyers as well as the rules regarding the development of apps for developers.

apple has a lot more to worry about than whoever of you out there that feel your precious little Google Voice app has been unjustly treated. they have 50+million users and 65,000+ apps to contend with. they have to meet what the industry likes to call the "Lowest Common Denominator".

Apple even pointed out in their letter that the GV app was scrubbing info from the phone and uploading it to Googles servers without knowledge of the user. Apple indicated that they felt that violated the privacy commitment to its users that it had made. i personally find that to be the true hangman's noose to many of the complaints i keep hearing about Apple's control.

Apple has willfully put itself in a position to protect ALL of its users from ALL apps that could harm, devalue, and yes confuse the user experience of owning an iPhone/iPod. i for one am grateful. i don't have the knowledge or experience or resources to tear apart an app such as GV and determine if it's being sneaky in anyway, or if it will potentially damage my device or data. i depend on Apple for that, which is why i bought their product in the first place, because they made the commitment to me to perform that job.

i understand that there are those of you who know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will never get confused, or know that they would never in a million years EVER do anything stupid and put a malicious app on their phones. you want total control of your device that you bought and paid for. i know if given a device and an OS and the opportunity you would be more than capable of handling ALL aspects of protecting yourself and your experience without outside help or intervention. after all, we do have the "most popular" and "largest marketshare" OS in the world called Windows to prove that it is possible for a person to do just that, and to take care of their own security and experience after they've bought a device and an OS straight up and "own it" and "it's theirs" and "they can do with it as they please" and "MS shouldn't get in the way of their rights." :rolleyes: ;)

so you can say all you want that Apple is now the big screen in the 1984 ad, and you can say that i'm being submissive and allowing Apple to tell me what i should like, or how i should do this and that or what i should or shouldn't have access to. go ahead, tell me all of that. but in the end, where will it get you? no where. i will still have my Apple iPhone, that is doing the job exactly as Apple had promised me it would do, and i will sleep well at night knowing that the likelihood that even 1% of the apps that i've purchased directly from Apple would even remotely have the possibility of taking control of my life, my information, my experience, my satisfaction with my iphone purchase is unmeasurable.

at the end of the day, the phone that is in my pocket has an Apple logo on it, not a Google logo, or an ATT logo, or any other logo for that matter, an APPLE logo. and no matter what app it is that ends up causing the problem, when a user has a problem, and they can't get something fixed, or an app crashes their iPhone/iPod, it is Apple whose store they walk into and expect a satisfactory resolution to their issue to occur. and if that doesn't happen, it will be Apple's products that they no longer buy, not someone else's.

in the end, Apple didn't design and build the iPhone/iPod for Google alone. they built it for the user. and as such they have to consider the Lowest Common Denominator with regards to their review policies and development guidelines. if Google wants to step on the field and play ball then they'll have to accept all the same set of rules as everyone else.

[zombitronic]

It's like putting a gun to my head and saying accept.

God, I know. How DARE Apple make an iPhone and then MAKE me want to buy it against my will!? And then, just when I had HOPED that it would be completely open and unrestricted, they kept on regulating it themselves!! The NERVE of some companies... If only the government would listen to MY dramatic wishes and make every business in the country cater to MY needs. And then, all these APOLOGISTS are saying that Apple has some kind of choice in their own operations, that I have to make my own choice as a consumer and that the market will decide the success or failure of a product. Makes me sick.

[trekkie604]

Even if Apple doesn't approve the Voice app (which imo they should...), I've used GV on my Magic and can't Google just code a webapp that has all the features of a standalone app? Just like Gmail.

[FearNo1]

Sometimes that is a good thing. Look what happened with banking industry, big 3 autos, etc. G Gordon Gecko would be proud of jobs: greed is good ;)

Again the government getting its dirty paws into how a private company must operate. Fabulous.

[ethana]

Shame on Apple.

[occamsrazor]

It really doesn't affect my overall experience with the company's products, and I think the same can be said for a lot of users.

Which is great, if you're satisfied with what's on offer, then obviously that's good for you and no-one here wants to force you to do anything else.
But it's clear from this discussion (and from the popularity of jailbreaking, unlocking etc) that others do want to do more with their machine. Having your cake and eating it, with respect, is a poor metaphor, as is your use of the word entitlement. No-one is demanding that Apple create and provide them with a particular application, nor that everyone must install a particular application.
All they're asking for is not to be actively prevented from using the device the way they want to and installing an application that - for them - improves the iPhone user experience - for them.
If Joe Smith were to install Google Voice or any other application on his iPhone, I guarantee you it won't affect your machine or your happiness with it one bit. So what's the problem exactly?

[frogger2020]

I love how the apologists are creepin' out of the woodwork... Case in Point.

Fanboi's are always in the woodwork

[FearNo1]

Most of the apps are crap. There are a few good apps. Unfortunately you have to JB iphone to really benefit from it...

Plus everything in the Productivity, Business, Reference, and Medical sections. You kinda forgot that.

How many of you actually use the App Store and have any clue how to search it or use its filters?

Obviously, games and the like are going to drive App Store popularity.

[*LTD*]

Again the government getting its dirty paws into how a private company must operate. Fabulous.

In all fairness, most Western democracies could use a little government regulation here and there. It isn't "Socialism" (the meaning of which has become horribly skewed these days), it's simply a mixed economy. It can be a good thing.

[nkawtg72]

one last thought. here's an example of Lowest Common Denominator for you. how long have computers had a mouse?!

to this day, i would estimate that well over half, maybe even 3/4 of the people i have seen using their computers, when faced with a link on a webpage, will DOUBLE CLICK the mouse instead of SINGLE CLICK the link.

are they stupid? are they malicious? are they uninformed? are they rebels?

it doesn't matter what they are. it is a behavior. and a designer has to consider what he feels COULD be the potential behavior of the end user and design around the Lowest Common Denominator

[TuffLuffJimmy]

In all fairness, most Western democracies could use a little government regulation here and there. It isn't Socialism, it's simply a mixed economy.

Whose side are you on? First you say this is bad, now you say it's necessary. Do you even know what you're talking about?


This is a Google Voice rejection from the App Store thread, btw. :p

[CWallace]

One thing I don't get, if Apple keeps saying it duplicates the core function of the phone app, how is the RingCentral Mobile app still in the app store?

It is because Apple reserves the right to refuse to approve an application that duplicates what they believe to be core functionality. To my knowledge, they have never said that they will reject all such applications out of hand.

So Apple may decide that the amount of functionality it duplicates is "acceptable" or they may feel that allowing such duplication of function - even if it's duplication in entirety - does not "undermine" the overall platform.

So something that is a better calculator or weather application (like WeatherBug) would be allowed, while something that allows users to place calls on the AT&T cellular system say as data and not voice (and as I do not know how Google Voice operates, I am not claiming such for that application) would be rejected because it could allow one to make "unlimited" calls for the cheaper data rate as well as perhaps put additional stress on the cellular system (should a VoIP data call require more resources than a cellular voice call).

[nkawtg72]

Whose side are you on? First you say this is bad, now you say it's necessary. Do you even know what you're talking about?


This is a Google Voice rejection from the App Store thread, btw. :p

actually you are 100% correct, a little government control isn't Socialism. in fact it is called Fascism.

thinks for pointing that out

[hanpa]

God, I know. How DARE Apple make an iPhone and then MAKE me want to buy it against my will!? And then, just when I had HOPED that it would be completely open and unrestricted, they kept on regulating it themselves!! The NERVE of some companies... If only the government would listen to MY dramatic wishes and make every business in the country cater to MY needs. And then, all these APOLOGISTS are saying that Apple has some kind of choice in their own operations, that I have to make my own choice as a consumer and that the market will decide the success or failure of a product. Makes me sick.

Those who bought a PC with Windows 1.0 might have done that knowing that this was not a perfect platform and that there were other alternatives. I bought the iPhone instead of the Android, since the iPhone is a better platform despite Apple's dictatorship. As an owner of the iPhone I have the right to demand slightly more than those who don't own one, do you agree? And if there were a lot of non conservative users that want to use the full potential of the iPhone, do you think that your conservative attitude shall stop them? I don't.

[kernkraft]

There is a hardcore, trigger-happy, rather shallow and pretentious member among us. He fulfills every criteria to be called an 'Apple Fanboy'. In fact, I would like to call the person stronger names, but let's not go into WW2-territory! Having said that, he/she might be an Apple door-to-door salesperson. Can you spot it?

How come, people have so much time?! I think, some of us should get a life!

What's the point of defending Apple on every single action they make? That indicates limited integrity and limited intelligence.

[hashholly]

The problem seems to be wanting your cake and eating it too.

People love everything about the iPhone, but want a couple of things a certain way - or else. That's fine, but when a sense of entitlement enters into it (that will at some point clash with company imperatives), tears are the inevitable result.

This goes for anything, really. At some point Apple's closed and controlled system is going to cause some issues. Thankfully, they're minor for the most part. It's inevitable. this goes for any company. But there's a costs vs benefits analysis we all need to make. In light of what we're getting overall, I see no point in vilifying Apple over this continuously, especially when there is so little support for it outside these forums. It really doesn't affect my overall experience with the company's products, and I think the same can be said for a lot of users.

People need to accept that nothing is perfect, and nothing will 100% be the way they want it to be. Hell in a perfect world i would love for skype to replace the iphone phone app so i can place and receive calls anytime i want. No this will never happen, and i would be a fool to be upset with Apple or anyone else at this point because it hasn't but them the breaks. One has to remember that not too long ago we didnt even have an App store and we were all stuck with those crappy "web-apps"

In the end before people start complaining at Apple for what they have accepted into the app store, or denied they need to ask themselves is it really a deal breaker for them? If it is, people have plenty of options, they may not be on par with the Iphone offering but hey, the iPhone isn't the only touchscreen phone out there.

[pdjudd]

That´s not correct. I know several iPhone users that use it in the same way as I do.

Again. So? Moving the goalposts by calling the iPhone something that it is not is irrelevant. It doesn't matter HOW you use it. It matters WHAT it is. A sports care does not become an off road vehicle (along with all the benefits of off road vehicles) simply because I take it off the highway.

I might use the phone part later but right know I have another phone that my company makes me use.
I know a bunch of people that regularly use their own phone and one their company provides. Both as phones. Your point being?

I understand your point, you probably live in the US and don't have the 3g cellular capabilities that we have here in Sweden. If there was an iPod Touch with 3g (iPhone without phone) with lower lost than the iPhone, I'd have consider buying that instead.

Please do not use insulting ad hominum attacks. I have regular access to 3G technology quite regularly thanks you very much.

Your complaint is that there is not an iPod touch with a 3G radio. Well thats not something that Apple offers. My point is. You do not have a computer. You have a Phone. Your phone offers a lot of things, but don;t kid yourself and call it something that it is not.

[CWallace]

What's the point of defending Apple on every single action they make? That indicates limited integrity and limited intelligence.

And what's the point of castigating Apple on every single action they make? That would also seem to indicate limited integrity and limited intelligence, would it not? Should they also not do something more with their free time and "get a life"?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

actually you are 100% correct, a little government control isn't Socialism. in fact it is called Fascism.

thinks for pointing that out

What what? Where did I say anything about that?


Also: since when is there a fine line between fascism and socialism? I really don't think you have a strong grasp on these hot button words.

[*LTD*]

Whose side are you on? First you say this is bad, now you say it's necessary. Do you even know what you're talking about?


This is a Google Voice rejection from the App Store thread, btw. :p

I have no problem with the FCC examining the situation, if it's come to that. There has been no ruling and no accusation rendered by the FCC. Someone asked for an inquiry and it's happening.

Apple has the right to reject an app, and I believe the mechanism for responding to inquries about it should be in place as well.

If there was any actual wrongdoing on Apple's part (which we don't know yet), then I fully support a fair ruling.

[*LTD*]

actually you are 100% correct, a little government control isn't Socialism. in fact it is called Fascism.

thinks for pointing that out

I think you meant to respond to me.

You seem to be getting your terms mixed up.

[nkawtg72]

Those who bought a PC with Windows 1.0 might have done that knowing that this was not a perfect platform and that there were other alternatives. I bought the iPhone instead of the Android, since the iPhone is a better platform despite Apple's dictatorship. As an owner of the iPhone I have the right to demand slightly more than those who don't own one, do you agree? And if there were a lot of non conservative users that want to use the full potential of the iPhone, do you think that your conservative attitude shall stop them? I don't.

ah!!! there's that word again!!!!

RIGHT. "it's my right to...."

i don't know what country you live in (i didn't check), and that's not meant to be an attack. my point is that in the US, no, you don't have the Right to demand anything.

to avoid turning this into a civics lesson, i'll simply refer to the Bill of Rights, and ask that you tell me why i am not correct.

if you don't live in the US, that may not apply to you. hence one of the problems with forums :)

[kernkraft]

And what's the point of castigating Apple on every single action they make?

I wasn't talking to you. Besides, I am not castigating Apple on everything. But it is obvious from the posts that many of us feel that Apple is abusing its position; limiting consumer choice and discouraging development.

[pdjudd]

What's the point of defending Apple on every single action they make? That indicates limited integrity and limited intelligence.

On the contrary. There are tons of people, me included that have completely differing stances on many different stances that Apple has made. I for one think that Apple's approach to the App store is terribly flawed in several ways and has lots of improvements to make. I also think that several of Apple's competitors have done things right that Apple has not done. Just because it's flawed doesn't mean that I blame Apple for it and think that my rights are being trampled on. I bought the iPhone knowing it's limitations - it's my job as an informed consumer to do that. Not to mention that App purchases was the last thing on my mind when I got the phone. I thought of App purchasing as a nice bonus, but not something that I would rely on. I didn't think of it as a replacement for what my laptop can do because i saw them as inherently different things.

Not everybody here is a blind religious zealot. You get a lot of fans, because this site is geared toward Apple products, but dismissing people's perspectives because you (general) think they are blind fanbois drinking the kool-aid in the RDF field is no more helpful than the zealots are. You are not going to convince everyone, that doesn't mean that you should dismiss everyone.

[*LTD*]

I wasn't talking to you. Besides, I am not castigating Apple on everything. But it is obvious from the posts that many of us in this particular thread, in this forum feel that Apple is abusing its position; limiting consumer choice and discouraging development.

That's kind of an important distinction. Not saying you don't have a right to your opinion, but that the majority here doesn't necessarily reflect opinion at large.

[nkawtg72]

What what? Where did I say anything about that?


Also: since when is there a fine line between fascism and socialism? I really don't think you have a strong grasp on these hot button words.

you are correct, i do apologize. somehow my response got attributed to the wrong post.

however there is a distinct line between the two. put simply and generally speaking:
socialism is government ownership
fascism is stricter government control

I think you meant to respond to me.

You seem to be getting your terms mixed up.

yeah, thats very odd. not sure how my response got attributed to the wrong post there.

to clarify my point. there is a distinct line between the two. put simply and generally speaking:
socialism is government ownership
fascism is stricter government control

[TuffLuffJimmy]

however there is a distinct line between the two. put simply and generally speaking:
socialism is government ownership
fascism is stricter government control

:eek:
*checks watch*

No way. No way. No way. You have no grasp on either of those words. Lemme guess, Obama is a socialist, right? :D:D:D:D:D:D

So what part of this issue is socialist and what part is fascist?

[hanpa]

Your complaint is that there is not an iPod touch with a 3G radio. Well thats not something that Apple offers. My point is. You do not have a computer. You have a Phone. Your phone offers a lot of things, but don;t kid yourself and call it something that it is not.

I'm not complaining. I don't force you to use a certain app on your iPhone, I don't have to use the phone on mine. Actually, in one of Apple's ads, they describe all the great functions and at the end mention that it's also a great phone. Still, I currently don't use the phone part and I'm an adult person that can make my own choices... I don't need the phone part. OK?

[Bodah]

I am tired of reading "if I don't like it, go to Android."

I CAN'T, I am locked into a contract for another year with ATT. I can't just leave my iPhone and switch to Android without paying a huge fee.

If I would have known Apple was going to pull this garbage, I doubt I would have gone with them in the first place. Especially since in his keynote, Jobs said the reasons for rejection would be "porn, malicious apps, apps that invade your privacy, illegal content, unforeseen issues, and bandwidth hogs"

[dernhelm]

It all depends on the meaning of the word "reject"...
:rolleyes:

[ziggyonice]

BusinessInsider.com reports (http://www.businessinsider.com/did-not-apple-contradicts-google-2009-9)...

Apple (AAPL) disputes Google's (GOOG) claim that Apple rejected the Google Voice iPhone app.

An Apple rep writes:

“We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter. Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google.”

Earlier, Google unredacted parts of its filing to the FCC from last month, claiming that Apple did reject the Google Voice app.

via 9to5mac (http://www.9to5mac.com/Google-Apple-FCC-letter-rejected-voice-app).

[kernkraft]

That's kind of an important distinction. Not saying you don't have a right to your opinion, but that the majority here doesn't necessarily reflect opinion at large.

Without wasting time on analysing the 200 posts, the negative votes outweigh the positives by 3 to 1. That's a very strong opinion, I think from 100 voters/readers.

[hanpa]

ah!!! there's that word again!!!!

RIGHT. "it's my right to...."

i don't know what country you live in (i didn't check), and that's not meant to be an attack. my point is that in the US, no, you don't have the Right to demand anything.

to avoid turning this into a civics lesson, i'll simply refer to the Bill of Rights, and ask that you tell me why i am not correct.

if you don't live in the US, that may not apply to you. hence one of the problems with forums :)

I fully understand that I don't have the legal right to demand anything. But I demand some attention from Apple and together with a lot of other users with similar needs, Apple might change sooner or later. I live in Sweden.

[zombitronic]

Those who bought a PC with Windows 1.0 might have done that knowing that this was not a perfect platform and that there were other alternatives. I bought the iPhone instead of the Android, since the iPhone is a better platform despite Apple's dictatorship. As an owner of the iPhone I have the right to demand slightly more than those who don't own one, do you agree?

I suppose you have the right to demand, but you have to realize that Apple has the right to ignore your demand. I would rephrase that as the right to EXPECT more, given Apple's product history vs. the competition.

And if there were a lot of non conservative users that want to use the full potential of the iPhone, do you think that your conservative attitude shall stop them? I don't.

I don't know what makes you think I throw down with the conservatives, but that's not the reality. Because I'm against unjust regulation? There are situations where regulation is a good thing; I just strongly feel that this is not one of those situations.

In regards to full potential, that's a moot point because full potential cannot be measured. Potential is a product of the future, meaning it doesn't exist in present reality, meaning it doesn't exist. It's an idea. Therefore, you have to judge a device on its limitations, which are usually much more concrete, rather than its potential.

If you're against this particular limitation, that's fine. That still doesn't make a case for forced intervention, as there's nothing illegal about this limitation.

[mdriftmeyer]

I agree with you, but at the same time I'm looking at this as a CONSUMER and the apps that I want for this device.

Google & Apple said it themselves in the document: Duplication of Features.

Think about ALL of the apps on the app store. THink about how SO MANY of them DUPLICATE FEATURES on the iPhone.

Give me consistency Apple.

Give app developers confidence in building apps BEYOND games & fart apps.

The iPhone is the best mobile platform, period, but I'd like some longevity in the platform and something MORE sophisticated than yet another Wikipedia app.

w00master

The Consumer doesn't give a rat's ass beyond consistency. The surrogate who seems to be self-appointed and speaking on behalf of the Consumer is who gives a rat's ass. They are competing developers who hide behind the veil of Consumer Choice to garner sympathy from a loud minority voice, in order to gain a foot hold into a market they currently can't control.

[*LTD*]

you are correct, i do apologize. somehow my response got attributed to the wrong post.

however there is a distinct line between the two. put simply and generally speaking:
socialism is government ownership
fascism is stricter government control

Government subsidization of a particular sector of your economy is not Socialism. It's part of a mixed economy.

In Canada, for example, we have government subsidization of our health care. It's not perfect, but at least we don't need to take out a second mortgage in order to get surgery. Quite frankly, we wouldn't have it any other way. That's about it. Aside from the regular gamut of programs any other Western democracy implements, Canada is just as capitalist as any other country.

In fact:

http://innovate.typepad.com/innovation/2007/05/most_entreprene.html

There are socialist elements at work in many democracies and "Westernized" nations. Most of them have mixed economies.

Every country has elements of socialism and capitalism. For example the 'capitalists' in Japan have much more govt involvement in business than Canada.

There's not a single country in the world that is purely capitalist (even Hong Kong has some government intervention in its economy), just as there's not a single purely socialist country (even at the height of Communism, China had at least some private sector).

Most developed countries have a mixed economy.


Without wasting time on analysing the 200 posts, the negative votes outweigh the positives by 3 to 1. That's a very strong opinion, I think from 100 voters/readers.

I kind of meant off of our small corner of the internet.

I tend to also think about the average user that doesn't hang out on MR and such sites. We don't represent, by any stretch of the imagination, the bulk of Apple's market.

[nkawtg72]

:eek:
*checks watch*

No way. No way. No way. You have no grasp on either of those words. Lemme guess, Obama is a socialist, right? :D:D:D:D:D:D

So what part of this issue is socialist and what part is fascist?

simmer down there fella.

i'm not trying to turn this into a political discussion.

to try and answer your question short and sweet i was ONLY trying to respond to LTD comment about MORE government control, in matters such as this thread is discussing, not being socialist.

i was simply pointing out that stricter government control is in fact and defined as Fascism.

i will accept wrong doing in that my followup post stated Socialism as being government ownership, when what i meant to typo was Communism being government ownership.

as it has nothing to do with the topic, a discussion of Obama, or Communism is not necessary.

[mdriftmeyer]

Government subsidization of a particular sector of your economy is not Socialism. It's part of a mixed economy.

In Canada, for example, we have government subsidization of our health care. It's not perfect, but at least we don't need to take out a second mortgage in order to get surgery. That's about it. Aside from the regular gamut of programs any other Western democracy implements, Canada is just as capitalist as any other country.

There are socialist elements at work in many democracies and "Westernized" nations. Most of them have mixed economies.

Every country has elements of socialism and capitalism. For example the 'capitalists' in Japan have much more govt involvement in business than Canada.

The most capitalist country would be somewhere like Switzerland or the Cayman Islands, but even that's debatable.

There's not a single country in the world that is purely capitalist (even Hong Kong has some government intervention in its economy), just as there's not a single purely socialist country (even at the height of Communism, China had at least some private sector).

Most developed countries have a mixed economy.

30% drop out rate currently exists in the US. Oklahoma seniors > 70% couldn't name the first president of the United States of America.

There is a high probability people screaming the US is headed in the wrong direction don't know the difference between their heads from their rears on Economics, Political systems and much more.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Hmm... Google said one thing, and Apple has come out to say that they do not agree with it. I suppose I don't truly have a reason to believe one company over the other, and plenty of history in missed details through reporting. Rather than pump out a knee-jerk reaction to this one, I'll sit back and see how it plays out.

[axual]

Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Rabbit season.
Google: Duck season.
Apple: Rabbit season.
Google: Duck season.

Elmer Fudd shoots duck.
:p

[pdjudd]

I'm not complaining. I don't force you to use a certain app on your iPhone, I don't have to use the phone on mine.

Perhaps I should have said "issue" instead of "complaint". And no, I am not saying that you should be be using the phone portion of the iPhone at all. However call the device what it is - a Phone.

Actually, in one of Apple's ads, they describe all the great functions and at the end mention that it's also a great phone.

I think calling the device "iPhone" is what defines it as a phone. Besides, when the iPhone was first introduced, it was leading it as a phone. App development (which is what you want) didn't come for another year. Sure, things expanded once Apps hit, but I think that Apple, its it's ads, are saying that all of this - in a phone. That's why the ad's end with the phone ringing. The ad's that are not telecommunications oriented are the touch. Thats a whole 'nother ball game though. My point. It's a phone and should be looked at from that perspective.


Still, I currently don't use the phone part and I'm an adult person that can make my own choices... I don't need the phone part. OK?

Did I ever said you have to use it as a Phone? No. Most people that I know that get an iPhone, get it because it is a phone. That's what I have been trying to tell you. When you buy an iPhone, you are buying a phone. You are not buying a computer or anything else.

[nkawtg72]

I fully understand that I don't have the legal right to demand anything. But I demand some attention from Apple and together with a lot of other users with similar needs, Apple might change sooner or later. I live in Sweden.

that's cool. i agree, you can demand things of apple. i am of the opinion though that if they dont listen, you as a end user have the choice to then "vote" with your wallet. there are others on here though that think at that point the government should step in and force Apple to give in the to your demands.

i've been to Sweden. great place. beautiful country. very friendly people there. i'm actually a little jealous :)

[pdjudd]

Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Rabbit season.
Google: Duck season.
Apple: Rabbit season.
Google: Duck season.

Elmer Fudd shoots duck.
:p

You forgot:
Google: Duck season! Fire! :D

[Eso]

Let me give the apologists a little metaphor in the form of a commercial:

Google gives us a red truck and Apple takes it away. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKdIKP1arF0)

Red truck = google voice app.
Man in suit = Apple
Kid = consumer
Limited time offer in fine print = apps cannot duplicate functionality in fine print

1) Google produces an app for an operating system
2) Google presents app to consumers (for approval to app store)
3) Apple says, "no, consumers can't have this, but here, take this web version instead!"

[TuffLuffJimmy]

30% drop out rate currently exists in the US. Oklahoma seniors > 70% couldn't name the first president of the United States of America.

There is a high probability people screaming the US is headed in the wrong direction don't know the difference between their heads from their rears on Economics, Political systems and much more.

So you're saying.... people with a weak grasp on fascism, communism and socialism are.... from Oklahoma?

[eastcoastsurfer]

The real reason is the AT&T a-list coming out in 2 days. Add your Google number and get unlimited calling for $60/month.

It can still work w/o a Google Voice app on the phone, but it makes it a bit more cumbersome to use. Personally, all my work calls that originate while I'm sitting at a computer anyways are going to go through GV from now on, and I'm dropping my unlimited minutes plan back to the 900 minute plan for $60/month.

Get with the program AT&T!

[pdjudd]

that's cool. i agree, you can demand things of apple. I agree, except I would replace "demand" with "ask".

i am of the opinion though that if they dont listen you as a end user have the choice to then "vote" with your wallet.
Yes. Just because one asks, doesn't mean the answer has to be "yes". In this case, the answer was "no"

there are others on here though that think at that point the government should step in and force Apple to give in the your demands.

I agree - as long as the requests are relevant. The FCC shouldn't get involved with Apple's rejection of say, a porn game. I do think that they should look at things like the banning of Skype over 3G for example because that can involve the public airwaves. If it tunes out that Google Voice just used 3G as a data transmission and not for actual voice transmission, their involvement should end. The question here is weather or not this is a private matter between Google and Apple involving a contract, or is it between Apple/AT&T, Google, and the FCC involving voice and public airwaves.

[*LTD*]

So you're saying.... people with a weak grasp on fascism, communism and socialism are.... from Oklahoma?

And probably from many other states, unfortunately. Political understanding in the US has taken a turn for the worse over the last decade.

[nkawtg72]

Let me give the apologists a little metaphor in the form of a commercial:

Google gives us a red truck and Apple takes it away. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKdIKP1arF0)

Red truck = google voice app.
Man in suit = Apple
Kid = consumer
Limited time offer in fine print = apps cannot duplicate functionality in fine print

1) Google produces an app for an operating system
2) Google presents app to consumers (for approval to app store)
3) Apple says, "no, consumers can't have this, but here, take this web version instead!"


tell you what. keep calling me(us) apologists. the more you do that the more you come across like you're Obsessive Compulsive.

give it up already. the more i side with apple the more you call me an apologist. the more you keep trying to convince me that im wrong and your right, the more i think you have OCD because you just won't let go.

state your opinion and move on. throwing names out like its candy doesnt get you anywhere in the respect department.

[hanpa]

Perhaps I should have said "issue" instead of "complaint". And no, I am not saying that you should be be using the phone portion of the iPhone at all. However call the device what it is - a Phone.



I think calling the device "iPhone" is what defines it as a phone. Besides, when the iPhone was first introduced, it was leading it as a phone. App development (which is what you want) didn't come for another year. Sure, things expanded once Apps hit, but I think that Apple, its it's ads, are saying that all of this - in a phone. That's why the ad's end with the phone ringing. The ad's that are not telecommunications oriented are the touch. Thats a whole 'nother ball game though. My point. It's a phone and should be looked at from that perspective.




Did I ever said you have to use it as a Phone? No. Most people that I know that get an iPhone, get it because it is a phone. That's what I have been trying to tell you. When you buy an iPhone, you are buying a phone. You are not buying a computer or anything else.

I disagree. This may be hard to understand but this is a fact. The first computers were used to crack ciphers and for administrative task like salary systems. This is not the reason why I buy a computer.

From www.apple.com
"iPhone is more than just a phone. It combines three devices in one: a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod, and a breakthrough Internet device."

I don't think it's a revolutionary mobile phone, not at all actually.

OK, it works as an iPod but currently I'm using Spotify for listening to music so for me it's a widescreen Spotify.

I agree on the breakthrough internet device and that's the main reason why I bought it. The device is more breakthrough in theory than in practice due to the 3g cellular restrictions that are not technically motivated in most countries.

[RoboCop001]

As Secret CEO to both Google and Apple, I can confirm that we DID in fact reject our Google voice application, but then quickly unrejected it after receiving a large amount of sexy money from ourselves the night after.

And that's the end of that chapter.

[pdjudd]

Let me give the apologists a little metaphor in the form of a commercial:

Google gives us a red truck and Apple takes it away. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKdIKP1arF0)

Red truck = google voice app.
Man in suit = Apple
Kid = consumer
Limited time offer in fine print = apps cannot duplicate functionality in fine print

1) Google produces an app for an operating system
2) Google presents app to consumers (for approval to app store)
3) Apple says, "no, consumers can't have this, but here, take this web version instead!"

No. Apple is just saying that this is not a truck stop and we never said it was one. Not to mention that Google may be giving us (rather offering) something that they don't have the entire rights to give since they never cleared it with their partners.

Google may offer a truck, but they can't do it on their own.

[phatcat]

They can "discuss" it for years to come... It's just as good as rejecting it.

[DougB541]

I think the bigger issue here is that they potentially lied to the FCC about this.


What reason does Google have to lie? Apple has shown they have no issue lying on the other hand (hey Steve Jobs has a hormonal imbalance....aka....a liver transplant).

I agree....Apple has become the company they were going against. They still make great products but come on.

[pdjudd]

I disagree. This may be hard to understand but this is a fact. The first computers were used to crack ciphers and for administrative task like salary systems. This is not the reason why I buy a computer.

I would argue that the computers that we use today are the spawn of their originators - not their originators. I also argue that computers are just elaborate calculators. But thats neither here nor there

From www.apple.com (http://www.apple.com/)
"iPhone is more than just a phone. It combines three devices in one: a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod, and a breakthrough Internet device."

Their first definition of the item is a phone. Its the first thing on their list. And note that none of that predicates running standalone apps! It is a phone first and foremost. If you want to argue it's something else, fine, but that doesn't make it true. Answer this, why call it an iPhone if it is not in fact a phone at its heart? By not call it the Touch and not even market the phone at all?

I don't think it's a revolutionary mobile phone, not at all actually.
We could argue that until the cows come home and not get anywhere. Simply becasue you say "no it ain't" doesn't make it true.

OK, it works as an iPod but currently I'm using Spotify for listening to music so for me it's a widescreen Spotify.

I agree on the breakthrough internet device and that's the main reason why I bought it. The device is more breakthrough in theory than in practice due to the 3g cellular restrictions that are not technically motivated in most countries.

You bought it for one feature. However you should be aware that the "internet device" moniker is not what it truly is. Just becasue you are not using the phone part doesn't change that it is a phone. Thats what you have - a phone. You can call it whatever you wish - call it Dave for all it matters. You still got a phone.

[Eso]

No. Apple is just saying that this is not a truck stop and we never said it was one.

The OS is the truck stop, so yes, they did say it was one (i.e. platform for apps).

[lkrupp]

What if they hate Apple but like its products? :p

Makes no sense what-so-ever. The products are the company. If they hate Apple as much as they claim to they are being disingenuous in using Apple products. They go on and on about how Apple disrespects the customer by dictating how things work and what options are available. They rant and rave with every release of a product, condemning it for the lack of this or that feature, capability, or function. They denigrate Apple's management team for its marketing decisions, claiming they know how to do it better. Then they have have the balls to sign with a signature that proudly advertises every single Apple product they possess, as if this somehow makes them subject matter experts. They are losers, every last one of them. Their attitudes go well beyond constructive criticism, which every company needs and desires. They are downright mean and hateful. They want Apple sued. They want Apple to be forced by the federal government to comply with their personal wishes. They want Apple taken down.

Yet they continue to be customers. The mind boggles at the sheer irrationality of the mindset. If I actually felt the same as these losers do about Apple there's no way I could continue to be their customer.

[Warbrain]

As I've said before - maybe not here, don't remember - but there's something more here than what Apple and at&t are letting on.

[rdaff292]

does it matter?

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

Why should I care if it was rejected or not?

[pdjudd]

I think the bigger issue here is that they potentially lied to the FCC about this.

Possibly.

What reason does Google have to lie?
I could think of several, namely that they compete with Apple in teh mobile space

Apple has shown they have no issue lying on the other hand (hey Steve Jobs has a hormonal imbalance....aka....a liver transplant).

Thats pretty disingenuous. A liver transplant is a treatment, not a disease.

[BryanLyle]

does it matter?

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

Why should I care if it was rejected or not?

Exactly. If Apple didn't reject it, then we should be told why it hasn't been accepted yet.

[pdjudd]

The OS is the truck stop, so yes, they did say it was one (i.e. platform for apps).

Apple never said that Google had unlimited parking privileges though. they can pass through (as a web app) but they never were given a parking permit and they never said that it was a free-for all.

Not even in the real world can you get something unconditionally. There are always terms.

[pdjudd]

Exactly. If Apple didn't reject it, then we should be told why it hasn't been accepted yet.
Why? Apple doesn't have to tell the public anything regarding a private contract between two companies.

Until the government and the FCC says otherwise, this remains a dispute between Apple and Google that the public is paying attention to

[occamsrazor]

Then they have have the balls to sign with a signature that proudly advertises every single Apple product they possess, as if this somehow makes them subject matter experts.

I think most people use signatures listing their Apple products so when they post in a thread about some technical issue or problem, people know exactly what hardware they are running on, as it may be specifically related to the problem in hand, without littering the forums with "what machine are you using" posts. Actually it makes a lot of sense and is frequently done the same way on all sorts of forums that address technical issues.
As for the rest of your post, it seems you are really bitter at any criticism of Apple from people who own their products but want to try and have them improved so they are better products. I don't understand why this is such a problem.

[lkrupp]

No, I'll continue to use my Apple products because overrall I think they're good. I also own a range of other non-Apple products and use them when they are best suited to the task. I use OSX for home computers and some work purposes, Windows for other work purposes that OS X can't replicate, a Linux-based router because it does things I want better than any of Apple's products, and various smartphones of Apple, Symbian and Windows Mobile varieties.
But I will continue to use forums like these to argue how Apple's products can be improved - if people feel that's such a terrible, terrible thing for an owner of a company's product to do, then that's a shame.

But you're not arguing for Apple to improve it's products. You are alleging criminal behavior on Apple's part. How can you be the customer of a company you consider a criminal entity? And by the way, anyone who lists all the technology crap they use and somehow think people will consider them an expert or a "tekkie" has other problems besides irrational thought processes. Apple has now responded to Google's assertions by denying them. You have chosen to believe Google in this matter. You have not explained why you made this decision yet.

[1283956]

our beloved apple will surely take down all its competitors

lets not worry our little heads
and start letting apple decide what we can have on our devices

I'm sure SJ would not want you to tire yourself

[adztaylor]

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/img/2008/01/apple-fanboy.jpg

[lkrupp]

I think most people use signatures listing their Apple products so when they post in a thread about some technical issue or problem, people know exactly what hardware they are running on, as it may be specifically related to the problem in hand, without littering the forums with "what machine are you using" posts.

Not in the Macrumors forums buddy. It's all about "mine is bigger than yours" and "I'm important because I have all this stuff". This is not a troubleshooting site. It's a rumor, gossip, rant, rave, expound, pound your chest, look at me site.

[occamsrazor]

But you're not arguing for Apple to improve it's products. You are alleging criminal behavior on Apple's part. How can you be the customer of a company you consider a criminal entity? And by the way, anyone who lists all the technology crap they use and somehow think people will consider them an expert or a "tekkie" has other problems besides irrational thought processes. Apple has now responded to Google's assertions by denying them. You have chosen to believe Google in this matter. You have not explained why you made this decision yet.

Please show me where I alleged criminal behaviour on Apple's part. I have never said that at all in this discussion. I'm unaware of the law in the US but I have no reason to suspect this is a criminal matter, and never once even suggested it. Please stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.

The ONLY argument I have made all along is that it is in the interests of users to have more OPTIONS when it comes to what they do with their own machines, and that Apple should not (if they are looking after their users interests, nothing to do with legality) be actively preventing users from installing apps on their machines that that particular user finds useful.

I've addressed your apparently deep problem with people's signatures in a different post.

[Chimpy]

Hopefully this leads to Google's Voice app coming back. That'd be sweet!

[occamsrazor]

Not in the Macrumors forums buddy. It's all about "mine is bigger than yours" and "I'm important because I have all this stuff". This is not a troubleshooting site. It's a rumor, gossip, rant, rave, expound, pound your chest, look at me site.

Errr... it is indeed a troubleshooting site. Perhaps you're confused because you're in the MacRumors News discussion sub-forum, whose purpose is defined as "comments, corrections, opinion on macrumors articles"

If you go over to the hardware or software forums on this site you'll find a wealth of useful information, advice and experience given freely and generously by the users of this site to help out other users who are having technical problems with their machines.

I really don't understand what your problem about signatures is. I list my machines because it's useful for others to know what hardware I'm using when I post in the troubleshooting forums, as I suspect is the case for most people here.

[occamsrazor]

Apple has now responded to Google's assertions by denying them. You have chosen to believe Google in this matter. You have not explained why you made this decision yet.

Will you please stop mis-quoting me? Where did I say I believed Google in this matter? I don't have to explain this decision because I never made this decision.

[xhambonex]

The real reason is the AT&T a-list coming out in 2 days. Add your Google number and get unlimited calling for $60/month.

It can still work w/o a Google Voice app on the phone, but it makes it a bit more cumbersome to use. Personally, all my work calls that originate while I'm sitting at a computer anyways are going to go through GV from now on, and I'm dropping my unlimited minutes plan back to the 900 minute plan for $60/month.

Get with the program AT&T!

I've heard that a couple times now. And that makes the most sense, but Apple wouldn't need to "reject" the app for At&t. At&t could, but still isn't GV on other mobile networks, something tells me Android has to have it.

Its a shame really, the iPhone just gets better with this kind of competition. I'm still awaiting the reasons why this is still be reviewed (rejected), the only one that would make sense would be free minutes on At&t's contract. The whole duplicating features argument is lame, plenty of apps duplicate features, few do so in a way that's better than Apple's default.

[eastcoastsurfer]

I'm not sure why you guys are still arguing about this. AT&T looked at GV and looked at their upcoming A-List feature and went crazy. People are not stupid and AT&T doesn't want to lose the revenue. Pretty basic really.

I don't think GV will ever get back on the iPhone unless it is forced by the FCC, or Apple does it against AT&T wishes (not likely while they still have the exclusive contract that gives kickbacks to Apple).

[rish]

Yep I'm letting you have a spot but now you've over stayed your welcome. Now p... Off. As for FCC , I could not give a rats arse what they think or anyone else for that matter. This is business I don't want duplicate process/functions. I want a device that works. I feel I have a deal that suits
me and I feel no reason to have an alternative voice app. I could not care if Apple lied or it was someone else. I bought an iPhone and I'm happy with it. Those that are complaining as if they have had their civil liberties affronted maybe want to consider moving to may Windows mobile and enjoy downloading any old crap. I like the tight integration I like the screening of apps. I would like to see a robust screening process of apps but for now it suits me fine. Adios for now

[Beric]

I'm not sure why you guys are still arguing about this. AT&T looked at GV and looked at their upcoming A-List feature and went crazy. People are not stupid and AT&T doesn't want to lose the revenue. Pretty basic really.

I don't think GV will ever get back on the iPhone unless it is forced by the FCC, or Apple does it against AT&T wishes (not likely while they still have the exclusive contract that gives kickbacks to Apple).

So according to you, Apple lied when it said that AT&T had not forced them to reject Google voice?

[Mattie Num Nums]

Someone brought up Apple didnt like google taking names and selling to Market Research. Couldn't they have used that as a reason why it was rejected, not some BS excuse like duplicate features. Speaking of duplicate features I downloaded 2 calculator apps.

[SFStateStudent]

Maybe resubmit the app, after the real details are revealed as to its being rejected, just make some corrections or changes....:eek:

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Maybe resubmit the app, after the real details are revealed as to its being rejected, just make some corrections or changes....:eek:

The app was rejected because it duplicated phone functionalities. If they changed the app and resubmitted it the app would be useless. What would it do without phone features?

[occamsrazor]

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.

[eastcoastsurfer]

So according to you, Apple lied when it said that AT&T had not forced them to reject Google voice?

Absolutely! There is big big money at stake. If you know how GV works, all you have to do is add your GV number to your a-list and unlimited minutes is yours. With everything being equal it's the simplest, move obvious answer.

What GV will end up doing to the companies who do the '5-10 free number thing' is force them to offer unlimited calling minutes for all numbers at a lower price. IMHO, this is a good thing, but one the cell companies will fight tooth and nail.

[*LTD*]

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.

That's not really what User A is saying.

It's what Apple is saying, and really, their TOS, which at the outset is perfectly reasonable. If you're looking for the "duplication" argument, it's certainly there, too.

User A is just pointing it out.

[pdjudd]

I just don't get this rationale.
Thats because it's the wrong rationale. Your second statement from person A is simply incorrect. What person A should say: The iPhone was never presented as an open device that can do whatever you would like and it is your responsibility to know that up front.

Trying to lead people down the garden path is a common logical fallacy. Your scenario doesn't make sense to you because your interpretation is flawed. Nobody is saying that they do not need Google voice. We are simply saying that such a service should not be implied to exist or be alloyed on the iPhone as talked about 2 years ago when the App store was unveiled.

[occamsrazor]

That's not really what User A is saying.
It's what Apple is saying, and really, their TOS, which at the outset is perfectly reasonable.
User A is just pointing it out.

It is what Apple is saying, you're right about that.
As is the third line of my previous post
But it's also what many of the posters here are saying, and it's them I was addressing.
I understand, sort of, though I disagree with it, why Apple says that.
What I don't understand is why User A argues that User B should be prevented from installing an app on his machine, that would in no way affect User A.
I couldn't care less what someone else does with their machine, why would other people care so much what I do with mine, if it doesn't affect them in any way. Live and let live, so to speak.

Thats because it's the wrong rationale. Your second statement from person A is simply incorrect. What person A should say: The iPhone was never presented as an open device that can do whatever you would like and it is your responsibility to know that up front.

Some people have been saying that, which is a somewhat stronger argument at least, I agree. Others have pretty much been saying it as I wrote.

Trying to lead people down the garden path is a common logical fallacy........... We are simply saying that such a service should not be implied to exist or be alloyed on the iPhone as talked about 2 years ago when the App store was unveiled.

I'm not trying to mislead anyone, if that was the way it seemed, I'm sorry. Whether Google Voice fulfils how the iPhone and/or AppStore was presented is one thing, and whether it truly falls foul of the appstore exceptions, I don't know, nor do I really care. All I have argued all along has been how I think things could be bettered, including that the device should be more open. If that requires changes in the way things are done with the appstore and existing iphone software, then so be it.

[SeaFox]

Really? So because the lowest common denominator has no use for Google Voice then everyone should just sit down and shut up?
+1, Insightful

It's thinking like this that causes 90% of the world to get mired in Internet Explorer for five years.

[xhambonex]

Absolutely! There is big big money at stake. If you know how GV works, all you have to do is add your GV number to your a-list and unlimited minutes is yours. With everything being equal it's the simplest, move obvious answer.

What GV will end up doing to the companies who do the '5-10 free number thing' is force them to offer unlimited calling minutes for all numbers at a lower price. IMHO, this is a good thing, but one the cell companies will fight tooth and nail.

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).

[pdjudd]

Some people have been saying that, which is a somewhat stronger argument at least, I agree. Others have pretty much been saying it as I wrote.
If they are saying that, then they are probably wrong. People say lots of things on these forums, especially when the topic is a heated one.


I'm not trying to mislead anyone, if that was the way it seemed, I'm sorry.
On the contrary, I am not saying that you are misleading anyone, I measrly said, you were not applying a very logical route - your premise was flawed and therefore confusing to you. I am not claiming any intent.


Whether Google Voice fulfils how the iPhone and/or AppStore was presented is one thing, and whether it truly falls foul of the appstore exceptions, I don't know, nor do I really care.
Neither do I. I never plan on using Google voice. As I said before, until the FCC says otherwise this is a matter between Google and Apple.

All I have argued all along has been how I think things could be bettered, including that the device should be more open. If that requires changes in the way things are done with the appstore and existing iphone software, then so be it.

It could be done that way. However that may not be how things work out. What Apple is doing is perfectly lawful as things stand. Sure it may not be fair for certain parties, but I don't see things being that way for everyone (someone at some point won't be happy with whatever the status quo is!).

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.

[ob81]

Well, good job apple. I thank google for putting it out there in the open. I want the confirmation tht Apple went to AT&T first though.

[xhambonex]

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.


It gets better than just this GV debate...

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/18/fcc-to-propose-new-net-neutrality-rule-disallowing-data-discrimi/

Its good to see the FCC in action against this type of stuff.

[emulator]

Just make the ipa downloadable anywhere, that's all we need!!!

[pdjudd]

It gets better than just this GV debate...

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/18/fcc-to-propose-new-net-neutrality-rule-disallowing-data-discrimi/

Its good to see the FCC in action against this type of stuff.

Another good thing (Although I am deeply concerned that either the FFC doesn't have the teeth, it will get astroturfed by the cable and phone lobbyists, or will just get overturned when the Republicans get back in power just like last time).

Net Neutrality is very important.

[joueboy]

Apple is obsessed with cores: core 2 duo, core location, core graphics and etc. Now we don't even know they have this core dialer what's this? Oh yeah some kind of Apple's super high tech phone dialer whatever. How about Skype, they don't access the core dialer? I can't wait to hear the real reason of denying Google Voice it gonna be AT&T behind all of this. I want FCC bust AT&T's ass so they learn from their greediness. Apple will get in trouble too for being sucker. Don't get me wrong I still love their products as long that it is proven that AT&T is behind all of this, because they are the real evil. They only two reasons I'm with them is because they bought Cingular and the iPhone exclusivity. Go FCC show to us that you're serving the public instead of being known as...

[GoodWatch]

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.

Of course. How could anybody in his right mind EVER accuse Apple of ANYTHING? Just the thought..... :rolleyes: