What you are saying wouldn't sound like the ravings of a lunatic if Google were forcing users to use GV. They aren't. You willingly subscribe and install the application. The original Apple phone.app remains available.
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
What you are saying wouldn't sound like the ravings of a lunatic if Google were forcing users to use GV. They aren't. You willingly subscribe and install the application. The original Apple phone.app remains available.
Boy is Apple ever right on this!
1) Apple has allowed Skype to be used. via the web.
2) If Apple has an agreement not to allow a third party to provide VOIP over AT&T's network, then they have an agreement. That, to you Apple haters, is what is known as a contract! It is a legal obligation.
3) Even if they did not have this legal obligation, a program that changes the user interface would bother me tremendously if I had bought it and THEN found out.
4) If I would have bought Google voice App and found out afterwards thet Google had retrieved all my contacts and that they were on Google's server, I would report them to the justice department for not indicating that to EVERYONE before the APp is bought. I rely on Apple to weed out nasty things- just like what Google wants to do.
5) For all people criticizing Apple you have two wonderful choices:
a) Use the Skype VOIP which Apple has approved for use over WIFI
b) Even better, go buy a phone running Google's Android operating system. We won't miss you!
1) Apple has allowed Skype to be used. via the web.
2) If Apple has an agreement not to allow a third party to provide VOIP over AT&T's network, then they have an agreement. That, to you Apple haters, is what is known as a contract! It is a legal obligation.
3) Even if they did not have this legal obligation, a program that changes the user interface would bother me tremendously if I had bought it and THEN found out.
4) If I would have bought Google voice App and found out afterwards thet Google had retrieved all my contacts and that they were on Google's server, I would report them to the justice department for not indicating that to EVERYONE before the APp is bought. I rely on Apple to weed out nasty things- just like what Google wants to do.
5) For all people criticizing Apple you have two wonderful choices:
a) Use the Skype VOIP which Apple has approved for use over WIFI
b) Even better, go buy a phone running Google's Android operating system. We won't miss you!
Yes, it's implemented under the guise of "choice." That's quite a loophole for Google.
Morevoer, it's still a complete duplication of Apple's entire telephony interface, which is a big no-no. That's not the kind of app I'd expect Apple to approve. The iPhone isn't Google's personal playground to test out their mobile services and start messing with user data. That's what Android is for. Google is really stepping on Apple's toes here and raising the ire of AT&T as well. That's a problem.
Further, there remains the concern about what Google will do with your information. If that is unclear, or if Google has otherwise not provided any clarification about that, that's grounds enough to reject the app.
There are no statistical method problems --- when their sample size is the whole population. It is not like that they sample 1000 Americans and then figured out that the national average is 800 minutes a month. How did they come up with those numbers? The carriers list them in their quarterly SEC filings as we have 80 million subscribers and in this quarter we carry a total of xxx billion voice minutes. It isn't a sampling number.
Encouragement DOESN'T mean government isn't allowing it either.
It's going to be temporary because if all the Australian carriers are carrying the iphone --- then the iphone's appeal of stealing subscribers away from other carriers won't work. If the iphone can't steal subscribers away from other carriers, the carriers aren't going to be willing to eat the huge handset subsidies.
Again, you go sounding like Google is ramming this down your throat. They aren't. You go to their page and you subscribe willingly to this service if you want to use it.
They don't duplicate Apple's functionality, they give you an access to your GV voicemail, if you want to use GV voicemail, they give you a dialer, if you want to dial using your GV phone number, and they give you online contacts, if you want to access them via Google Apps.
They don't think the iPhone is their playground, they provide a convenient interface to their service, because the Web app doesn't support push notification (obviously). All the services are already available, just not as convenient to iPhone users.
And Google provide the same convenient application for their subscribers (willing subscribers, again, if you are scared by their service, you can just choose not to use it, there is no illusion of "choice" like you say) on many platforms, including Blackberry and Android. It's funny, RIM hasn't pushed them away and neither has AT&T.
As for what Google does with your data, that is covered by the TOS you get to read and accept upon subscription. Nothing is hidden away and everything is presented to you so that you're able to make an informed choice. If you don't want GV, don't use it. I don't see how Apple is right in blatantly refusing the choice to other users of their phone, lest they want Google Voice subscribers to go with the competition (which is getting fiercer everyday).
In the end, if they continue on this path, soon they will get supplanted by the competition and they will basically kill the iPhone platform themselves.
AT&T to blame
Despite AT&T's claim, it's fairly obvious that they are behind Apple blocking Google Voice (and related apps). AT&T is desperately trying to hold on to the old way of doing business, and is feeling that they will lose the race.
Remember, the first big electronic device that Jobs & Wozniac built together was the infamous "Blue Box," which allowed you to make free long distance phone calls. This was back in the days of Ma Bell. AT&T is Ma Bell, slowly pulling itself back together like the T2 from the Terminator movies.
Jobs abhorred the stranglehold the telephone companies had over communication (especially global comm) back then and still does.
Apple, Inc. has a standing policy to never say anything negative about their business partners. So, Apple is being patient, letting AT&T make false claims about their role in the whole affair. Apple's done its part - and AT&T walked right into it by denying they had anything to do with the ban.
AT&T made false claims that Skype and other VOIP apps would bring down their network, when a voice call is certainly far less of a strain than downloading music from the iTunes store or watching streaming video on YouTube.
I believe Steve is just sitting back with a big grin on his face, waiting for the anvil to fall.
Despite AT&T's claim, it's fairly obvious that they are behind Apple blocking Google Voice (and related apps). AT&T is desperately trying to hold on to the old way of doing business, and is feeling that they will lose the race.
Remember, the first big electronic device that Jobs & Wozniac built together was the infamous "Blue Box," which allowed you to make free long distance phone calls. This was back in the days of Ma Bell. AT&T is Ma Bell, slowly pulling itself back together like the T2 from the Terminator movies.
Jobs abhorred the stranglehold the telephone companies had over communication (especially global comm) back then and still does.
Apple, Inc. has a standing policy to never say anything negative about their business partners. So, Apple is being patient, letting AT&T make false claims about their role in the whole affair. Apple's done its part - and AT&T walked right into it by denying they had anything to do with the ban.
AT&T made false claims that Skype and other VOIP apps would bring down their network, when a voice call is certainly far less of a strain than downloading music from the iTunes store or watching streaming video on YouTube.
I believe Steve is just sitting back with a big grin on his face, waiting for the anvil to fall.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C116a Safari/528.16)
If the naysayers have such a problem with GV, don't use it. I don't see why you have to mandate that we don't use it or why our decision sucks. If you don't think GV is worth using, don't use it. I know it's hard to go on without insulting others, but it can be done.
If the naysayers have such a problem with GV, don't use it. I don't see why you have to mandate that we don't use it or why our decision sucks. If you don't think GV is worth using, don't use it. I know it's hard to go on without insulting others, but it can be done.
Google Voice not taking over
Some misinformation here.
For one, I believe Google Voice would be free. That does seem to be Google's way. Voice at Google has no charge to sign up (they just seem to have a shortage of numbers in some area codes).
For another, GV would not move all your contacts to their server unless you specifically did so. Think about sites like Facebook and Linked In which encourage you to upload your contacts from your computer, Yahoo or GMail accounts to see if anybody you know is already on the site. No difference. They don't grab them without you authorizing access. There was no indication that GV would be any different.
GV on the iPhone would have - and need - access to the contacts on the phone, but there are auto-dialer apps which do that as well.
And the routing of numbers would be manually managed by you - if you want certain calls to never ring your iPhone, you set that up.
I doubt that GV would "change" the interface. You can still use Apple's Phone to make calls. Anything coming in via Google Voice's routing would still come in to the built-in Phone app - it's always running, GV would not.
Dave
Some misinformation here.
For one, I believe Google Voice would be free. That does seem to be Google's way. Voice at Google has no charge to sign up (they just seem to have a shortage of numbers in some area codes).
For another, GV would not move all your contacts to their server unless you specifically did so. Think about sites like Facebook and Linked In which encourage you to upload your contacts from your computer, Yahoo or GMail accounts to see if anybody you know is already on the site. No difference. They don't grab them without you authorizing access. There was no indication that GV would be any different.
GV on the iPhone would have - and need - access to the contacts on the phone, but there are auto-dialer apps which do that as well.
And the routing of numbers would be manually managed by you - if you want certain calls to never ring your iPhone, you set that up.
I doubt that GV would "change" the interface. You can still use Apple's Phone to make calls. Anything coming in via Google Voice's routing would still come in to the built-in Phone app - it's always running, GV would not.
Dave
First of all, no you can't. If you notice from that video, when placing a "call" from the GV voice app, it merely calls the party you selected as well as your iPhone. Then your iPhone rings which uses the standard phone app. It even says that any replies to SMS messages you send from the app are forwarded to your iPhone number (which uses the default Messaging app, of course). All of the calls associated with the GV app are associated with your google voice number - which is completely different than your AT&T cell phone number. It's like being able to use multiple phone numbers from one phone.
Secondly, so what? If another developer can create a better "set of mobile telephony features", so much the better. Apple doesn't lose anything; it's not like users must buy their default apps individually. Their price is included in the price of the hardware.
If users want to use a different browser, or mail client, or phone app, or stock app, or weather app, etc., more power to them. If anything, Apple could only serve to benefit from third-party solutions as they would need to spend less time and money on the default applications.
The only way that this statement is accurate at all is when you consider how the UI of the app mimics that of the phone app - dialer looks the same, the tabs on the bottom are nearly the same as the default phone app. Far from "replacing" the default phone, I think it compliments the iPhone user experience for the very fact that the UI is so consistent with the iPhone UI. There are plenty of apps that do not use the standard iPhone UI. They don't make for a consistent user experience, so why are they allowed on the iPhone?
Must be the same blokes reviewing "Cash 4 Clunkers" sales reimbursements to the auto dealerships where they can have 250,000 or 500,000 dollars in rebates owed them by the government whose program says they will be paid within 10 days. Meanwhile, 30 days later... Can anyone say Health Care?
C'mon, Really?!
So "Jobs abhors the stranglehold the telephone companies had over communications" but I guess Jobs just loves Mac clone makers of past and more current, Psystar?!
Apple says, "Apples goal is to provide our customers with the best possible user experience. We have been able to do this by designing the hardware and software in our products to work together seamlessly."
AT&T I doubt would say anything much differently.
Job's had a little blue box.
Psystar has a little black box.
It's hardball business no matter how you look at it. I guess stealing is stealing no matter what color your box is.
Gotta give this one to you. I was wrong. AT&T seems to have nothing to do with Google Voice being rejected. I still don't see what you saw in that sentence though no matter how many times I've read it.
It's really hard not to look at their response and think that they're trying to play the FCC and users for fools.
There's nothing about GV that replaces the telephone system or creates confusion, given it's an optional installation.
The FCC should push on with this.
There's nothing about GV that replaces the telephone system or creates confusion, given it's an optional installation.
The FCC should push on with this.
So when I pay 500 dollars for my iPhone, is it really MINE?
I wish Big Brother Apple would stop making decisions for me. GV is an amazing application and honestly it doesn't take away from all the great things the iPhone offers it only enhances.
Bet you money Apple releases their own version of GV.
I wish Big Brother Apple would stop making decisions for me. GV is an amazing application and honestly it doesn't take away from all the great things the iPhone offers it only enhances.
Bet you money Apple releases their own version of GV.
It is the official job for those Apple sources to leak selective information to the public via the press, internet bloggers.
For example, the same Apple source who leaked the information to Jim Goldman at CNBC about Steve Jobs not being sick at all (just a hormonal balance thing) is going to continue to leak information about other Apple stuff to Jim Goldman in the future.
Goldman got burned in public about this thing. What is he going to do when this same Apple source (it's his job to leak information) tell Goldman (it's his job to report information) about new Apple rumors --- Goldman is going to report those new rumors with the asterisk attached saying those new rumors comes from the same guy who told me that Jobs wasn't sick at all.
That's how the real world works.
Again why the hell would ATT care about google voice. For the last time it does NOT effect there bussiness. If anything it adds. it takes YOUR minutes off your cell phone plan to use google voice.
ATT saying no to skypt is understable it is a true VOIP so it would be costing ATT money.
GV on the other hand bring it in. Please provide one reason why ATT would give a damn about GV. It still uses your cell phone minutes
That is totally different. This is a simple fact. It DOES benefit Apple because they sell more phones, and it DOES benefit consumers because they have choice and the networks compete to get their business. It is that simple. This is not marketing hype, it is simply true. Apple understands that and they are doing that business model in most of the world. They just happen to be locked in a contract with AT&T still in the US!
Are you being serious lol?
Are you aware that pretty much the whole world EXCEPT the US has the iPhone on more than one carrier?Best post of the day.
Thank you for pointing this out.
I aim to please!
Apple is so good at PR.
This was a PR mistake and they are trying to dust their tracks. They aren't doing as good as they usually do. Apple has been using AT&T as a scapegoat and it looks like AT&T is willing to say we had no part of this. Now Apple is saying we never declined it. This Merry-go-Round will keep going around.
Again, Apple makes great products, but they are fooling themselves if they think they can get away with things. Another company used to do this. May have heard of them, they call themselves Microsoft.
This was a PR mistake and they are trying to dust their tracks. They aren't doing as good as they usually do. Apple has been using AT&T as a scapegoat and it looks like AT&T is willing to say we had no part of this. Now Apple is saying we never declined it. This Merry-go-Round will keep going around.
Again, Apple makes great products, but they are fooling themselves if they think they can get away with things. Another company used to do this. May have heard of them, they call themselves Microsoft.
That is totally different. This is a simple fact. It DOES benefit Apple because they sell more phones, and it DOES benefit consumers because they have choice and the networks compete to get their business. It is that simple. This is not marketing hype, it is simply true. Apple understands that and they are doing that business model in most of the world. They just happen to be locked in a contract with AT&T still in the US!
They have been changing their business models a few times already. First with full price iphone with a 2 year contract with a simlock with revenue sharing. Then they drop the revenue sharing. Then they have a few countries with multiple carriers.
It is a simple fact that keynote speeches are sales pitches. They can say whatever they want --- whether it's true or not.
I'm not saying everything that leaves Apple's mouth is fact, but that doesn't mean facts aren't stated during a keynote.
Yes they have changed their model. And as you can gather, they have been evolving into what the market is accepting with the most success. Early on they got away with full price and royalties etc. Now that is changing and they are opening to multiple carriers and so on. This is a natural progression as Apple OBVIOUSLY wants the greatest amount of success possible. Now after a while of opening to carriers in the world Phil stated that after having done that now, Apple has found it to be very successful for them and consumers. I guarantee you that Apple is anxious to open to other carriers here in the US as well. They will sell a LOT more phones when they do. It is just a matter of contracts being fulfilled and compatibility coming with 4G networks so they can continue to manufacture one device with one assembly. In the beginning it made sense for them to partner with AT&T and adapt the dominant global standard. Now it makes sense for them to open and expand with 4G, and they will and are awaiting the day for further growth opportunity and adoption, i guarantee you. This isn't really rocket science!
It's been this way for decades.
Nothing to see here, move along, these are not the droids you're looking for....
It's been this way for decades.
Nothing to see here, move along, these are not the droids you're looking for....
