Sidebar Sidebar
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

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

You Apple apologists are killing me! I'm as big an Apple fan boy as there is out there. I use Google Voice daily and have for a couple of years (since it was GrandCentral). The features are excellent and simple to use. Apple comes off looking foolish in this letter.
 
matthewmyates said:
Apple really isn't thinking this through...

1. GV is still in beta (ok...one point to Apple)

2. GV Stops you from getting voicemail in the voicemail app (lie, it only records voicemail for the GV number NOT the cellular number...one point for Google)

3. GV Replaces the dialer (lie...it doesn't replace it, just makes another available to you...whether or not it uses AT&Ts Cellular network is up in the air as no one has seen the app outside of Apple...null points)

4.GV Text SMS replaces Apples SMS (yet another lie...it doesn't replace it it just makes another available to you for a completely different phone number...one point for Google)

5. GV Steals your contacts and sends them to a GV server (point of contention here...Google could easily remove this functionality to come into compliance even if it is true at the moment...null points)

So it comes down to: 1 point for Apple, and 2 points for Google

Hardly a big win for Google, but a win nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Disagreed on #1. Google notoriously keeps the beta on apps for years and is better than others 1.0 release.
 
"Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone."

This is the part I love. It doesn't alter or replace the core telephone functions. There's nothing distinct or innovative about the core phone or text programs. If this was truly the case then there wouldn't be any GPS apps, weather apps, calculator apps. You can't pick and choose core functionality and call it sacred.
 
Can someone from Apple please explain why the GV apps were pulled from use on the iPod Touch. Last time I checked, it does NOT "alter the iPod Touch’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPod Touch’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple did NOT spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPod Touch."

But in all seriousness, this app should be approved for use on the iPod Touch by such reasoning. This has yet to be explained by Apple...
 
TMar said:
"Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone."

This is the part I love. It doesn't alter or replace the core telephone functions. There's nothing distinct or innovative about the core phone or text programs. If this was truly the case then there wouldn't be any GPS apps, weather apps, calculator apps. You can't pick and choose core functionality and call it sacred.
Click to expand...

I move that this disturbing and inconvenient point be stricken from the record. Further, I move we never point out Apple's hypocrisy again, as it unsettles my worldview--and I'm sure the worldview of other irrational Apple fanboys like myself.
 
I may be confused but did Apple reject the google latitude app? Why is this not mentioned in the list of rejected apps? I thought google was releasing a native app and then was not approved so they had to do the webapp.
 
Video streaming over cellular networks

Regarding the role of AT&T in relation to the Google Voice app, Apple clearly explains that AT&T has no role in the app approval process, nor does anything in Apple's contract with AT&T have any bearing in this situation. It is noted, however, that the agreement with AT&T does require Apple to not "include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T’s permission," which clearly provides the reasoning behind the Wi-Fi-only functionality of the Skype VOIP app and other similar apps.
Click to expand...

What about video streaming over AT&T's 3G network? Does the Response mention anything about AT&T's possible involvement in the app approval process in relation to this? If foreign carriers are willing and able to support apps such as Slingplayer over their cellular networks, would Apple and AT&T be violating any international agreements by rejecting such apps or prohibiting video streaming to the iPhone over cellular networks?

Also, would it be possible for Apple to approve different versions of apps for different countries to the degree where the apps have different functionalies? Take Slingplayer for example- would there be anything legally wrong for Apple to enable Slingplayer to work over cellular networks in one country but not another?
 
pdjudd said:
The FCC has nothing to do with the iPod touch. It is outside of the realm of this investigation.
Click to expand...

But still, Apple's own reasoning in this case is completely unrelated to the iPod touch because nothing they said is applicable to this device--and when apps are rejeced, they at least like to give some reason. So what would this reason be for GV for iPod only?
 
Hmmmm.....suspicious

Google raises a complaint....FCC asks questions to all 3 parties (Apple, ATT, and Google).....and Google is the only one that does not provide a public response. Something fishy is going on here with Google.
 
I could care less about the GV app. This is what bothers me:

"Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T’s customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T’s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration."

I would love to get a SlingBox for home so I can watch certain shows from my phone, but I can't unless I'm on WiFi.

My friend with his Blackberry has the ability. T-Mo even lets it happen on their poo poo network for SlingBox owners.

What strikes me about the above comment is you can get MLB Live and watch a live game. Wouldn't this count as redirected TV?
 
TMar said:
...

This is the part I love. It doesn't alter or replace the core telephone functions. There's nothing distinct or innovative about the core phone or text programs. If this was truly the case then there wouldn't be any GPS apps, weather apps, calculator apps. You can't pick and choose core functionality and call it sacred.
Click to expand...

As much as I agree with you, you do have to admit that the phone is the core functionality of the iphone. That and Visual Voicemail is (as far as I'm aware) a distinct feature.
 
Krizoitz said:
Yeah, Apple is TOTALLY planning to block firefox on the Mac because its exactly like the iPhone.

Apple sells the iPhone as a solution for a number of things, which in addition allows you to add some (but not all) capabilities. Anyone who is surprised or upset that Apple is not going to let someone else come in and encroach on the iPhones core features really hasn't been paying attention, Apple has stated this as the plan from the get go. The iPhone is not the same as the Mac, its a different device with different strengths, weakness, and philosophy behind it. While Apple will certainly change in some aspects regarding the iPhone/AppStore (allowing an SDK, allowing adult apps) etc. Certain things are unlikely if ever to change (Flash, competing browsers). GoogleVoice falls into the later catagory at this point because it usurps one of the primary roles of the iPhone itself.

Apple is pretty much telling you that you are welcome to use a competitors product if these types of things are a big deal to you because Apple doesn't feel its the strategy they want to take. If you really want a phone you can do whatever you want with it Android is your best bet, the iPhone on the other hand, is never going to be a trully free device in an official way, and thats the plan. Its somewhat like complaining about Microsoft not letting you install some sort of emulator to play other games officially. You are welcome to try or to get a system that lets you do it, but they aren't going to help you do it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this, I second the above statement.
Jeff
 
NoExpectations said:
Google raises a complaint....FCC asks questions to all 3 parties (Apple, ATT, and Google).....and Google is the only one that does not provide a public response. Something fishy is going on here with Google.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I was totally thinking that! This is all just a Google conspiracy! I bet they just submitted the app on purpose to hurt Apple! Yeah... and Eric Schmidt was a big spy... stealing all of Apple's good ideas for Android... and now they are trying to hurt my beloved Apple!!! We need to stand up for our beloved company! *pant* *pant* *pant* *pant*
 
FTA: "It appears to ... [replace] the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls"

BULL F'in Shiat. Apple you are lying through your teeth and KNOW IT. :mad:
Default Apple installed apps CAN NOT be removed or replaced without jailbreaking the phone.
If it WERE, then that in itself would pose a HUGE security flaw in the phone's OS itself (Which would be Apple's problem, not Google's).
And if they mean the app appears similar to the phone's native app, then why do they not also reject the numerous other apps that do the same (or similar MyPhone+, Skype, etc).

Besides, didn't the Google app devs already receive a rejection notice?
So wouldn't that mean right there mean the app was REJECTED?

Unless by Apple's twisted logic; Rejected + reconsidering rejection in light of FCC spotlight = Was not rejected.
applethinkdifferent6121b.jpg
 
GViPodTouch said:
Can someone from Apple please explain why the GV apps were pulled from use on the iPod Touch. Last time I checked, it does NOT "alter the iPod Touch’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPod Touch’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple did NOT spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPod Touch."

But in all seriousness, this app should be approved for use on the iPod Touch by such reasoning. This has yet to be explained by Apple...
Click to expand...

1. Its my understanding that you only have one app for both the iPhone and iPod Touch, so it getting put into limbo for the phone puts it into limbo on the touch.

2. GV Apps would be useless on the Touch, why? Because it uses 3G to answer / place calls, and sms, it is NOT VOIP so its not going to be using WiFi to work.
 
RMo said:
But still, Apple's own reasoning in this case is completely unrelated to the iPod touch because nothing they said is applicable to this device--and when apps are rejeced, they at least like to give some reason. So what would this reason be for GV for iPod only?
Click to expand...

I was not addressing the reasons to Apple not immediately approving Google Voice - I don't care about that - I feel that to be a matter between Google and Apple. I was addressing the statement that "Apple still has to answer about the iPod!" claim to which I replied that they in fact do not have to reply on that - it is not a component of this investigation. I even went to the point of not mentioning Google at all.

If you want my guess, I would say that Apple treats the iPod Touch with the same standards as the iPhone. The only programs are concerned are network based. If the program is acceptable on the Cell network, it would be valid on the touch because of Wi-Fi. Same for wi-fi only apps. The iPhone is the device that the Touch is based off of. Remember, the restrictions are based on the content of the program, not the targeted platform.

That and Apple probably would have a hard time restricting various programs to one platform or another - they would rather have one program that covers both for simplicity purposes.


All I am going to say on this topic further is that we will have to see what the FCC has to say on this and if they have further questions on this matter.

EDIT: HashHolly points out that the google voice app would be useless on the touch since it depends on the Att network.
 
hashholly said:
2. GV Apps would be useless on the Touch, why? Because it uses 3G to answer / place calls, and sms, it is NOT VOIP so its not going to be using WiFi to work.
Click to expand...

SMS and voicemail over GV are carried via the data/internet. Only voice calls are carried over the voice network. In fact, initiating the call requires data because the app tells GV's servers to start the call. You can use your Touch as a conduit to your other phones.

Edit: Think of how GV works via the web interface. That's essentially what the native app would provide.
 
What strikes me about the above comment is you can get MLB Live and watch a live game. Wouldn't this count as redirected TV?
Click to expand...

I don't know much about how MLB Live works, but perhaps it is more akin to streaming video from the internet than a redirected tv signal? (Perhaps someone more informed than me on this forum could explain the difference between how MLB Live and Slingplayer for iPhone work when live video is streamed?) If this is the case, then couldn't we expect to see approval of a Netflix app that works over AT&T's 3G network. This is assuming Netflix develops an iPhone app and submits it to Apple, of course.
 
outphase said:
SMS and voicemail over GV are carried via the data/internet. Only voice calls are carried over the voice network. In fact, initiating the call requires data because the app tells GV's servers to start the call. You can use your Touch as a conduit to your other phones.
Click to expand...

Of course that would be a pretty limited version of Google Voice... No calls!!
 
djdole said:
BULL F'in Shiat. Apple you are lying through your teeth and KNOW IT. :mad:
Click to expand...

The whole letter is just a bunch of lawyer garbage and it reads more of as an advertisement than a response to a government regulatory service. I hope the FCC received a different letter in the mail.

This still doesn't clear-up why that 3rd party GV app was suddenly pulled from the App Store. Apple got caught with the pants down on this one and now they're just dancing around the situation.

OK, Google is up next.... I just hope something positive is going to come from all this. But, I'm not going to hold my breath.
 
pdjudd said:
Of course that would be a pretty limited version of Google Voice... No calls!!
Click to expand...

You would use GV in the same way the web interface works. You would tell GV to dial any of your phones that are already on the service. This includes any landlines or any other cell phone.
 
djdole said:
FTA: "It appears to ... [replace] the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls"

BULL F'in Shiat. Apple you are lying through your teeth and KNOW IT. :mad:
Default Apple installed apps CAN NOT be removed or replaced without jailbreaking the phone.
If it WERE, then that in itself would pose a HUGE security flaw in the phone's OS itself (Which would be Apple's problem, not Google's).
And if they mean the app appears similar to the phone's native app, then why do they not also reject the numerous other apps that do the same (or similar MyPhone+, Skype, etc).
Click to expand...

You've rather misunderstood what Apple was saying. It's not physically replacing Apple's Phone app. It's one app from Google that would sit alongside others on the phone. Apple's point is the user would use Google's app rather than Apple's - replace their use of Apple's app with that of Google. It's figurative, not literal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back