sounds fine to me, it seems they made their comment with their complaint, what are we looking for, a comment on their complaint?
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
sounds fine to me, it seems they made their comment with their complaint, what are we looking for, a comment on their complaint?
Not to mention the fact that MLB and Television networks have specific contracts just for their produced medium and nothing more.
In short, MLB wouldn't agree to a contract if CBS, ABC, ESPN or whatnot demanded absolutely exclusivity over how the game is broadcast.
MLB has their own network now. They can easily bypass CBS, ABC or ESPN and offer the network, as a free add-on to cable, satellite providers, if necessary. MLB is more than happy to spread it's brand to smartphones. They are trying to sell merchandise and tickets to the games.
No. You missed the point entirely.
Apple developed the Phone Interface and functionality. Having Google redirect all data packets to Google servers for storing personal information and override basic core functionality of the iPhone is far beyond the bounds allowed, in the first place.
This makes it clear right away why Schmidt got canned [um, resigned] from his temporary post as a board member at Apple.
I've never liked the man in the first place. I'm glad he's gone.
Depends on how you define the word replace. If they mean google was deleting and replacing the iPhone phone.app, then yeah they should have denied the app. If instead, they used the word to intentionally mislead, and the GV app would have simply provided an alternative, then no, this is not valid reason...there are lots of apps that provide alternatives to the individual features that GV provided.
It does not say anywhere in the letter that the user was not given a choice in sending the contacts to google...this is assumption on your part.
Google doesn't redirect anything despite what Apple's response would have you believe.
What a lot of you Apple defenders out there are not getting from this is the fact that Apple just LIED or is playing REALLY STUPID to get out of this FCC mess. If this is the letter that went to the FCC then Apple is gonna have some explaining to do when the FCC gets Google's response and an ACCURATE explanation of how GV works.
Thats a lie
If AT&T doesn't have any input in the app approval process then why is Slingbox 3G only?
If AT&T doesn't have any input in the app approval process then why is Slingbox 3G only?
There is only one reason that rings true in that entire letter.
Visual Voice Mail. A GV app with Push Notifications would completely replace the iPhone VVM in phone.app.
They can't claim duplication of features and user confusion (unless they assume we are all idiots) and expect that it will be received as a valid reason when other apps duplicate each of the features that GV provides (almost) except that the GV app rolls them all into one app. Obviously, Apple does not care about apps that simply duplicate features of the phone app or SMS. Once you own the phone, Apple makes no money from you using these features, and so they have always allowed alternatives.
VVM is a whole different story. VVM is a huge money maker for Apple. Carriers pay apple for the VVM servers and additionally pay a recurring subscriber fee for every subscriber. This is huge money for Apple.
A GV app that provides access to GV VVM with Push notifications would mean lots of users dropping the VVM option (AT&T does allow this, but other carriers do) and so cost Apple the recurring revenue and would mean carriers would not have to scale up their VVM as quickly, which is more lost revenue to Apple.
Still a dick move.
Visual Voice Mail. A GV app with Push Notifications would completely replace the iPhone VVM in phone.app.
They can't claim duplication of features and user confusion (unless they assume we are all idiots) and expect that it will be received as a valid reason when other apps duplicate each of the features that GV provides (almost) except that the GV app rolls them all into one app. Obviously, Apple does not care about apps that simply duplicate features of the phone app or SMS. Once you own the phone, Apple makes no money from you using these features, and so they have always allowed alternatives.
VVM is a whole different story. VVM is a huge money maker for Apple. Carriers pay apple for the VVM servers and additionally pay a recurring subscriber fee for every subscriber. This is huge money for Apple.
A GV app that provides access to GV VVM with Push notifications would mean lots of users dropping the VVM option (AT&T does allow this, but other carriers do) and so cost Apple the recurring revenue and would mean carriers would not have to scale up their VVM as quickly, which is more lost revenue to Apple.
Still a dick move.
Umm no..it provides an alternative. It does not magically 'redirect all data packets'.
actually forget it..nothing in this post makes sense.
No, I haven't. For a start, djdole was completely wrong, Google's app wouldn't touch the built in apps.
From what I understand, your iPhone would ring as normal, you can happily text (and send MMS) and call as normal. You're iPhone contacts aren't (as far as we're aware) uploaded to Google. You simply have the option to use the app to initiate a call through GV or send an SMS. Any app made with SDK 3.0 can interface with Contacts and initiate a call.
In the US, VVM comes along with AT&T's data plan. There is no additional fee otherwise. Also, GV's VVM only comes into play with calls made to the GV number. It does not intercept calls made to your standard AT&T number as Apple's letter would have you believe.
No it doesn't intercept calls to you carrier number, but the point if GV is to use a single google voice number for all phones, which would use the gv vvm.
Also I know it isn't an option with AT&T, but it is for millions of customers outside of the US. and Apple covets their cash just as much. Also, if AT&T does start to provide VVM al carte or as part of a options pack, then it becomes a concern. Now that AT&t will be requiring a data plan for all smart phones, they may be forced to allow users to drop vvm.(probaby not)
congrats for those keeping an open mind.Both actually. Whether you get VVM as part of your plan or as an add on, the carrier pays the sub. For myself, my carrier allows VVM to be added on as a separate option (or did). So you could keep your existing voice and or data plan and just add on VVM. These days I think it is only available as part of an iPhone plan or as part of an addon option pack, which also includes SMS and some other not so useful features (WhoCalled etc).
So, yes, the carrier pays the sub, regardless of how you get your official VVM, but many carriers allow you to add/drop it as an option, stand alone or part of a value pack.
Dropping VVM and SMS would save me almost 25% of my monthly bill. Beside Google Voice not being in Canada yet, they only thing that would keep me from dropping these features immediately for GV, is that without Push Notifications, they aren't properly replaced. I don't want to wait 30 minutes or more to get an email that I have new VVM or SMS.
This is also why Apple clearly states they have no problem with the WebApp. The Web App would provide 100% of what the native app would, and Apple even says they would encourage this...but a web app would not have push and therefore would not be a fulltime replacement for the built in VVM and SMS...this is key.
First, Aussies are the best. Secondly, you know when you buy the iPhone what the features are and that there is some sore of app store that allows u to buy additional apps if you want them. When they sell the phone its not like they say "you can buy Google Voice" just to find out the option doesn't exist. If someone is expecting a phone that will provide every possible app under the sun, now and in the future, then that will always be a disappointed consumer, no matter what phone they buy. Again, if you don't like the arrangement, clearly known upfront (you can see what apps are available before you purchase the phone), then either don't buy the phone or jailbreak it.
There is no legal case here. But the FCC needs to do something to justify their waste of taxpayer dollars.
Nor have a back account, cell phone, a mortgage, loan, credit card, drivers license or live in a established country with a recognized government
Considering the fact that the iPod Touch runs the same software as that of the iPhone, it's absurd for even suggesting such. There'd be no way to offer it exclusively to the Touch and NOT the iPhone.
so many experts...
1. 40 reviewers x $50K year/reviewer = $2 mil/year
- perhaps 40 reviewers to review 70% junk apps with no revenue is adequate.
- disclaimer: these numbers are a point guess, very conservative to say the least, provided that they live in CA, USA.
- apple folks are for profit, very smart folks. If they have 40 reviewers, that may be appropriate, in spite of what any one 'expert' in this forum says...
2. has any one seen the iphone google app that is in review?
- is yes, where is the pick? where are the links?
- if not, then we have to give apple the benefit of the doubt when they say that this google app is not up to their standards.
3. finally, the original inquiry is not solely into the app review process, but into possible unfair practices by the apple-att liaison.
- point mute because att has no saying in the app review process
1. 40 reviewers x $50K year/reviewer = $2 mil/year
- perhaps 40 reviewers to review 70% junk apps with no revenue is adequate.
- disclaimer: these numbers are a point guess, very conservative to say the least, provided that they live in CA, USA.
- apple folks are for profit, very smart folks. If they have 40 reviewers, that may be appropriate, in spite of what any one 'expert' in this forum says...
2. has any one seen the iphone google app that is in review?
- is yes, where is the pick? where are the links?
- if not, then we have to give apple the benefit of the doubt when they say that this google app is not up to their standards.
3. finally, the original inquiry is not solely into the app review process, but into possible unfair practices by the apple-att liaison.
- point mute because att has no saying in the app review process
You are right...but just because You know of the restrictions that Apple has imposed doesn't make those restrictions right.
Also, they should change their commercials from 'An app for just about everything" to "An app for just about everything, so long as we think you are smart enough not to be confused by it, it doesn't compete with us, it doesn't stress AT&T's network (even if you aren't in the US), doesn't improve upon what we have provided built in, doesn't allow you to use a perfect legal alternative long distance provider or voice mail provider or SMS service or have adult words, or have nudity...well, some but not all, as we won't be consistent in our approval process. But apps for lots of things anyway, especially fart apps, oh we love to approve fart apps"
"Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it."
"Continues to study it???" What the heck is Google Voice, an alien lifeform???
This PR spin oozes lameness.
Haha good old PR spin.