Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Publicly Responds to FCC Inquiry, Comments on Google Voice App Status
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It also shows AT&T wants noting to do with it (if it's on the iPhone.) For the moment.
Well, THAT explains everything! Engineers are introverted asocial overweight virgins living in their mother's basement. They wouldn't approve any app that involves real-time interaction with another human being. Google never had a chance with this one.
It's weird. Minutes would still be used, AT&T loses nothing. The free SMS might worry AT&T I guess. But big deal, you could use AIM and text from your screen name. It's all so silly.
MacMan, wtf. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
I never said the app would replace functionality.
IN FACT I said there was NO WAY it could, but that IF it did, that would be a serious flaw in APPLE'S OS.
Stop. And actually READ.
Actually, it shows the opposite, that while AT&T has some contractual veto over what goes on their 3g network, this isn't it and they were not involved at all in the GV decisions.
This is all Apple and only Apple.
Lsss of SMS charges would seriously hurt them because they overcharge for it. Also AT&T is also a cable provider with phone lines for their triple play packages. Google Voice would be easier customers to dump their hardline since the they could redirect those calls to Google Voice.
This used to be called Grand Central. I had it back in the day before Google bought them. Here's what no one seems to be able to tell me why they think this app is needed or it's such a big freaking deal... besides the fact it has Google's name on it.
I get the online part about one number on multiple phones. I didn't see the point but whatever.
Here's my big WTF is the point moment. You have to call Google and then you have to remember the persons number you want to call. So what if you don't remember your contacts number? You gotta look it up! Image all the people trying this crap WHILE DRIVING!
You type that in and Google calls them.......... WHY!!!??? I'm using more time to do this. Not to mention it's not using data to connect you so you're using cell minutes the whole time anyway. It's pointless.
I feel like one of the Bob's from Office Space talking to Tom Smykowski from Office Space.... "what would you say you do here?"
I get the online part about one number on multiple phones. I didn't see the point but whatever.
Here's my big WTF is the point moment. You have to call Google and then you have to remember the persons number you want to call. So what if you don't remember your contacts number? You gotta look it up! Image all the people trying this crap WHILE DRIVING!
You type that in and Google calls them.......... WHY!!!??? I'm using more time to do this. Not to mention it's not using data to connect you so you're using cell minutes the whole time anyway. It's pointless.
I feel like one of the Bob's from Office Space talking to Tom Smykowski from Office Space.... "what would you say you do here?"
Um, Apple dosen't have a data network. Unless you're using wifi, the data you're using is from your cellular carrier. You're still stuck relying on them.
Besides, putting all your eggs in one basket in terms of software, hardware AND services is in the very least a HORRIBLE idea.
Those of us who purchase Apple products already know this by the obscenely inflated prices Apple is allowed to force because they have no hardware competition for their OS (and advertise their OS & hardware as if it's one single 'Mac' entity).
This used to be called Grand Central. I had it back in the day before Google bought them. Here's what no one seems to be able to tell me why they think this app is needed or it's such a big freaking deal... besides the fact it has Google's name on it.
I get the online part about one number on multiple phones. I didn't see the point but whatever.
Here's my big WTF is the point moment. You have to call Google and then you have to remember the persons number you want to call. So what if you don't remember your contacts number? You gotta look it up! Image all the people trying this crap WHILE DRIVING!
You type that in and Google calls them.......... WHY!!!??? I'm using more time to do this. Not to mention it's not using data to connect you so you're using cell minutes the whole time anyway. It's pointless.
I feel like one of the Bob's from Office Space talking to Tom Smykowski from Office Space.... "what would you say you do here?"
The google voice apps make it a lot easier than you make it sound. For example, the app I have on my g1 makes it so that I go to the GV app, dial in the number I want, wait around five seconds for a callback from google, I answer, and then it connects me to the number I originally dialed. It isn't all that hard.
I disagree. I do think that AT&T had something to do with this. Just because Apple says they didn't, doesn't mean it's so.
My bet for how this went down:
1. Apple was initially fine with Google Voice and they let the apps into the store with Schiller's blessing.
2. AT&T found out about Google releasing their own Google Voice app and didn't realize that there were already apps in the store that supported this.
3. AT&T tells Apple to remove the apps from the store and they oblige.
4. FCC jumps in.
5. Jobs ,himself, finally looks at the app and doesn't like the fact that it could ruin the user experience he designed and that's why you see this mentioned in the FCC filing. He starts to really not like the idea of Google having so many core apps on the iPhone.
6. Eric Schmidt is kicked off the board.
You don't need to have a monopoly to be slapped with anti-trust allegations.
Microsoft in the 90's didn't have a full monopoly, just a dominant share of the PC market. There were Apple, Solaris, NeXT, Linux (in many flavors), and other Unix flavors as well. But due to it's dominant share and some questionable tactics, it was slapped with an anti-trust lawsuit.
Now Apple may not have a dominant smart-phone market-share just yet (currently about 13% - http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/08/13/iphone-market-share-grew-375-in-q2/) but they ARE gaining more and more everyday.
And just because you don't dominate the market dosen't mean tactics like Apple's are justified.
ESPECIALLY not in this case where Apple has a conflict of interest.
This used to be called Grand Central. I had it back in the day before Google bought them. Here's what no one seems to be able to tell me why they think this app is needed or it's such a big freaking deal... besides the fact it has Google's name on it.
I get the online part about one number on multiple phones. I didn't see the point but whatever.
Here's my big WTF is the point moment. You have to call Google and then you have to remember the persons number you want to call. So what if you don't remember your contacts number? You gotta look it up! Image all the people trying this crap WHILE DRIVING!
You type that in and Google calls them.......... WHY!!!??? I'm using more time to do this. Not to mention it's not using data to connect you so you're using cell minutes the whole time anyway. It's pointless.
I feel like one of the Bob's from Office Space talking to Tom Smykowski from Office Space.... "what would you say you do here?"
That's how it would work right now for someone on an iphone. For those of us with Blackberrys, G1 etc. We just open up the app, dial the number and the call goes through. It replaces ABSOLUTELY no phone functionality. Google Voice is amazing for those of us with a personal business, as we can have the number ring a home phone, cell phone etc. and the customer never knows. There are a lot of awesome uses for Google Voice, and remember just because you don't understand something - doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
Jailbreak... and then lose the limited warranty for the hardware, and ALSO lose any additional AppleCare warranty.
That may be an option if Apple allowed people to purchase an iPhone at a lower price without the warrenty, but until this option is available I for one am not willing to just throw away the cash I spent (included in purchase price) for the warranty.
Visual voicemail
Apple doesn't require phone companies to enable the visual voicemail feature. You don't get it with a pay-as-you-go iPhone in Britain. Using it as a reason to reject Google's app confirms that they put the interests of their monopoly carriers ahead of those of users and app authors.
Apple doesn't require phone companies to enable the visual voicemail feature. You don't get it with a pay-as-you-go iPhone in Britain. Using it as a reason to reject Google's app confirms that they put the interests of their monopoly carriers ahead of those of users and app authors.
I think you're mistaken. Apple is clearly saying that they're trying to protect it's customers from the ensuing confusion of being presented with multiple options to place calls and check voice mail.
This is a laudable goal. As I've been explaining ad nauseam, I am a deeply confusable individual who nearly fell into a stress-induced coma from the options presented to me on other mobile platforms.
Once I had two ways of checking my email on my Blackberry (through the Gmail app, and the built in Inbox application). Well, can you imagine what happened? I essentially couldn't use my Blackberry anymore. It was too confusing. There were two options for checking mail. It was like--and I'm not exaggerating at all here--hell on Earth. I really didn't know what to do. I became afraid of even glancing on the Blackberry screen when it was illuminated.
It makes far more sense, to me, to be presented with less options and to be forced to rely on a single option for telephony on the iPhone, as that's less confusing. Google Voice totally upsets my worldview and confuses me. For instance, it provides significantly cheaper long distance. Now, can you imagine my confusion if I were to place a one hour call to Europe using Google Voice, and my bill was only for a few bucks instead of the $50-$100 bill I would normally expect. That change would just be so confusing. It would especially be confusing, considering I'd have like... two little icons in the iPhone Springboard that can be used for dialing. WTF? It would be like the Gmail/Inbox nightmare on my Blackberry all over again. I'd probably become a non-functioning person, lose my job, destroy my children's furture and end up in a crackhouse in a bad part of town.
Not to mention, having to check two different places for your voicemail. Oh my. Not just two different ways to dial. Clearly, Google really is trying to push me head-first into a rubber room. Thankfully, Steve Jobs is there for me.
Thank you Apple. I know I'm sleeping better tonight.
Listen up, friends. Communication is not an open market in the USA. There are limited resources, and the FCC is in charge of making sure we get the best result from the few who profit from it.
Phones and carriers operate under very different rules than personal computers. Apple doesn't get that yet, but they could be about to have a hard lesson.
When you are using the public's airwaves, or you are a major method (and sometimes the only method) of communication in widespread areas, then you will get special FCC scrutiny.
Fifteen years ago, the FCC started pushing network neutrality... the idea that if we let just a handful of companies build the infrastructure and get the main revenue, then they should also have to lease pieces of that network to others to resell or use. (Back then, this even extended to the idea of having a single API that everyone could use.)
Then the Republicans came along, with an emphasis towards letting big business decide things for themselves. For eight years the carriers were allowed pretty free reign in setting prices, software, interoperability, etc. The walled gardens, and SMS/MMS and data plans, are a result of this lack of oversight.
Now the worm has turned again, and the FCC (and Congress) are back into a network neutrality phase, with the consumer getting as many rights and choices as possible.
Bear this in mind when you're wondering why the FCC is interested. If they (and Congress) don't get satisfactory answers, we're going to see some legislation that Apple and the carriers aren't going to like very much. (But which consumers might like a lot.)
Yes, Apple has done a great job of frightening people by threatening to not honor their hardware warranty. The same warranty that is almost word for word the same as the one on regular Macs... on which you can put any software you want without negating it.
Free calls? Significantly cheaper long-distance? Free SMS?
AT&T knew its scheme would be in trouble if it allowed GV. It comes down to a money issue. Better for Apple to reject an app than get boged down with AT&T, their partner, over this issue.
And maybe we can have it both ways on this. Anyonymouse over at AI, had this to say, which makes perfect sense:
Replace, duplicate, mimic, call it what you will, it seems pretty clear that the purpose of the gv app is to take over the telephony/messaging/contacts user experience, effectively turning the iphone into a tool to serve googles ends, at least for those users who would use gv. I can clearly see why apple would view this as a competitor's trojan horse.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1469021&postcount=52
And besides, Apple and Google are now competitors, and Apple seems to have caught Google attempting to control a bit too much on Apple's baby. So Apple seems to have trown a roadblock in their way.
If you think you're getting the shaft because of this, then get angry with the mobile carriers, where your anger SHOULD be placed. It isn't worth it to get pissed about some app. They get accepted and rejected all the time, and you've got thousands to choose from. Mobile carriers on the other hand . . . not much choice there, now is there?
Further, Apple has never and still absolutely does not make an explicit or implicit agreement with an iPhone buyer that such buyer can add software to the iPhone, excepting what is already provided at purchase and what Apple will provide via future updates (implicitly over the useful life, which is accepted as 2 years) or since Sept 2008, through third parties via its App Store and iTunes. Buyers should have no expectation that they can add software in any other way. Apple is selling a smartphone - a phone, an iPod, a web browser, and access to its App Store/iTunes Store. It is not a PC.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1469257&postcount=120
Sorry your point doesn't hold any merit what so ever.
Apple hosts this small program called MS Office.
Are you suggesting MS and Apple are not competitors?
I'll quote it in full, same source:
It seems pretty clear that the purpose of the gv app is to take over the telephony/messaging/contacts user experience, effectively turning the iphone into a tool to serve googles ends, at least for those users who would use gv. I can clearly see why apple would view this as a competitor's trojan horse.
It's not the same situation at all.
Besides, Apple allowed the Google Mobile app onto the App Store. And being able to run MS Office on a Mac allows for increased compatiblity with PC users, as well as an easier transition to a Mac if you're for whatever reason reliant on Office. I don't think Apple wants to provide iPhone users with a gateway drug to a Google-based phone and Goolge mobile services. The iPhone is a bit more of a closed environment, which is completely tied to the OS, of which a very significant part is Apple's mobile services and their specific implementation of it.
GV is really a *taste* of what we could have of the mobile carriers cleaned up their act and began offering services at more reasonable rates (flat rates, etc.) I'm not surprised GV was rejected, and really, if I were AT&T I'd reject it too . . . and then look at what I could to be more competitive. Whether Apple feels threatened by GV is debatable, but GV threatens the very basis for mobile carriers as they exist today.
There's that "confusion" BS excuse again.
I freakin' love it.I don't think this PR jujitsu is going to help Apple in the slightest this time around. They have a LOT to learn about the phone and carrier service which differs greatly from the computer market. As Kdarling said, Apple is headed for some serious schooling if they don't knock this crap off.
Yes, but that's in the software license, not the hardware warranty.
There is nothing in the hardware warranty that says that modifying software negates the hardware warranty. In fact, Apple hardware warranties specifically deny that they cover software at all... even Apple's own. Apple arbitrarily refuses to honor their warranty on jailbroken phones, by policy alone.
The silly thing is, unjailbreaking just takes a recovery. For that matter, Apple owns the secret key to signing the baseband. They could easily write code to reset an entire device, even unlocked ones, to a pristine software condition... and decide from there if the hardware is okay or not.
Sorry, I edited my post and erased it after realizing it wasn't exactly accurate in terms of your previous post.
Newsflash buddy, the US courts determined that Microsoft had a Monopoly because dominant share and control of a market is exactly what a legal monopoly is. The word doesn't mean "100% market share". And anti-trust laws only apply to monopolies, so yes you do need a monopoly.
Apple is not in a control position over the smartphone market. They aren't in a control position over music distribution. There is healthy competition in all these sectors and no one is stuck using Apple branded stuff.
Conjecture. We have written confirmation by Apple and AT&T that AT&T has nothing to do with it. Why would Apple lie to a government body that has life or death powers over the iPhone in order to protect a carrier that might have overstepped their bounds ? It just doesn't make sense unless you're a total Apple fanboy that doesn't want Apple to be the bad guy in all this. Not that they are, since they have stated before and again here that the iPhone is their toy and they don't care about the user's or 3rd party developer's vision for the product much.
This is probably more how it went down :
1. Reviewers used the guidelines initially to accept the 3rd party Google Voice apps (the 3 apps mentionned were never submitted by Google) since they didn't infringe any of the review requirements.
2. The Google Voice app is submitted and one reviewer asks higher up for confirmation because it duplicates functionality like the dialer/voicemail but refusing it might go against what was already accepted
3. Order comes down from the top (Apple) to remove the 3 apps and continue review on the google app, probably with some negotiations with google.
4. FCC jumps in because it's as paranoid as you guys are about AT&T maybe having something to do with this.
What now Google Voice is not just "glorified call forwarding" ? Try to at least keep your comments straight when trying to defend Apple tooth and nail.
AT&T, again, doesn't mind Google Voice on all its other smartphones where it is available and has done nothing to block it. Heck, Google Voice still works just fine on the iPhone through its web interfaces, you just lose the perks of easy voicemail access and easy dialing.
I know you guys don't want it to be true that Apple did all this and you know that somehow if it is, they will be seen in a bad light, but just let go. Apple says it's all Apple. AT&T says it's all Apple and Google's redacted paragraph probably proves it's all Apple.
There's that "confusion" BS excuse again.
I don't think this PR jujitsu is going to help Apple in the slightest this time around. They have a LOT to learn about the phone and carrier service which differs greatly from the computer market. As Kdarling said, Apple is headed for some serious schooling if they don't knock this crap off.
He's being sarcastic about it.