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 Rejects Official Google Voice iPhone Application
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
According to Apple if you jailbreak your phone you are not only a criminal but quite possibly a terrorist too. Their legal department imparts the most ludicrous of logic in a public legal document where they propose that jailbroken iphones can commit illegal acts such as crashing cell towers therefore it is crucial for jailbreaking to be illegal so such illegal acts don't occur. Right, because criminals care if jailbreaking is illegal?
Anyway, Apple thinks that you, and whomever else would like to use their product in a way not explicitly envisioned by Steve (under NDA) should be locked up, preferably in gitmo.
And to chime in on the App Store bit (again), it's specifically that Apple is rejecting GV for "duplicate functionality" that people have a problem with. They are saying that developers (the market) can't do anything that Apple does. In what world does that make any sense? Beyond that, it is imposing anti-competitive policies to the market, the market being the App Store. I shouldn't have to describe how banning companies from making apps that compete with Apple apps is anti-competitive. For those of you who cite that Apple's market share isn't big enough for these laws to apply, just wait. We all know Apple's share is growing at an amazing rate and really, when you count what percentage of the mobile app market money is going to the app store, you will start to see how big they are already.
I'm not sure if this is an Apple mistake or AT&T issue.
For those who would complain about AT&T do you really think Verizon or any other wireless carrier would want to approve this type of app? I mean with Google Voice I can greatly reduce my plan minutes which means less revenue for the carrier. Given Verizon's nickel and dime you to death mentality for everything from ring tones to turning on your phone - they might approve the app for an on going monthly additional fee. So I'm saying don't think just by going with another carrier would this app get approved.
If this is an Apple issue - wow, big mistake. There is some evidence this could be Apple's call since the GV app is available on AT&T for crackberries. So if Apple is cutting this out they really need to wake up. Since they trotted out the "duplicates functions of core iPhone" excuse I have thought they were really missing the boat. Who cares if a new browser is installed, a better address book or a better phone application. Many users, just like with Windows, will used the default installed apps. For those who care, they have the option to explore and try new apps. It strengthens the value of the core hardware and underlying OS software. It just makes no sense and as Apple has done with it's desktop OS, they could always just copy features in future updates.
I am wondering if this has more to do with Google's increasing power in the market place outside of search. Apple could be doing a lot of looking forward and not want to provide the platform on which people get hooked with Google products. I mean you have a search function, cloud computing with gmail/google apps/gafyd, web browser, operating system, chat and now SMS and phone. Not sure with holding the app though is the best way to stave off the coming competition.
For those who would complain about AT&T do you really think Verizon or any other wireless carrier would want to approve this type of app? I mean with Google Voice I can greatly reduce my plan minutes which means less revenue for the carrier. Given Verizon's nickel and dime you to death mentality for everything from ring tones to turning on your phone - they might approve the app for an on going monthly additional fee. So I'm saying don't think just by going with another carrier would this app get approved.
If this is an Apple issue - wow, big mistake. There is some evidence this could be Apple's call since the GV app is available on AT&T for crackberries. So if Apple is cutting this out they really need to wake up. Since they trotted out the "duplicates functions of core iPhone" excuse I have thought they were really missing the boat. Who cares if a new browser is installed, a better address book or a better phone application. Many users, just like with Windows, will used the default installed apps. For those who care, they have the option to explore and try new apps. It strengthens the value of the core hardware and underlying OS software. It just makes no sense and as Apple has done with it's desktop OS, they could always just copy features in future updates.
I am wondering if this has more to do with Google's increasing power in the market place outside of search. Apple could be doing a lot of looking forward and not want to provide the platform on which people get hooked with Google products. I mean you have a search function, cloud computing with gmail/google apps/gafyd, web browser, operating system, chat and now SMS and phone. Not sure with holding the app though is the best way to stave off the coming competition.
I don't think so. Look at some of the posts on this thread. This was originally posted on the iPhone blog and didn't make Page 1 until recently. It was the right move but way late.
Agreed. As much as we all love to hate AT&T, is Verizon really any better? No.
And the only reason Sprint has lower prices, and possibly (yet to be determined) will concede to apps like GV, is because they are absolutely desperate for customers right now.
AT&T is the ball and chain around Apple's ankle, not the other way around. Apple should just buy Sprint, move everything to 4G, and be done with this silly kowtowing to carriers.
You use Symbian and complain about the iPhone being crippled?
I don't see how Symbian is crippled - perhaps you'd like to weigh in and explain why? (I guess it'll be the usual gumpf about how it doesn't have a 3 acre multitouch touchscreen or something, not that Apple was the first to make touchscreen phones. You do appear to be an iPhone fanboy, after all)
Nokia makes cheaper, more rugged phones with more features and a far more open OS (WinMo probably does even better in that regard), and you can buy them on any network or sim-free. The iPhone seems to be yesterday's technology, at today's prices, and you can only use it how Apple want you to use it.
I refer you to my previous post that detailed why my 3 year old phone is largely technically better.
Ah yes, throw the "fanboy" card when someone disagrees with you. Well played, sorchard, well played indeed.
If anything in the mobile world is yesterday's technology, it's Symbian. Yeah, reality bites.
Ah yes, throw the "fanboy" card when someone disagrees with you. Well played, sorchard, well played indeed.
If anything in the mobile world is yesterday's technology, it's Symbian. Yeah, reality bites.
Glad to see you've provided a concise explanation as to why Symbian is allegedly "crippled" and "yesterday's technology".
Um, no it wasn't. It was sidelined into the iPhone blog, but not highlighted on the front page the day or two after it broke. I only knew about it because I read about it on the main technology page of The New York Times, but apparently the story didn't warrant MacRumors attention (instead, the top story that day was "What could the kill app of the new tablet be?").
Edit: I see, it was added later and sent to the very bottom of the front page. It's an improvement, but WAY LATE.
yep it was in the "blog" section, i guess after all the post they moved to "front" page.
hard to say if it was just bad judgement by arn (underestimating the importance of the story) or if it was some sort of favor called in by an external party.
on the judgement side, it's hard to imagine why some stories in the past have made it to the front page but not this one, despite being very similar (other apps rejecting/submission have made the front page). On the other hand, it's hard to believe that anyone at apple or at&t would give a crap keeping this off of MR's front page when almost 1,000 other news sources (most of them much more widely viewed) are reporting the story as their top tech story.
so, just weird.
on the judgement side, it's hard to imagine why some stories in the past have made it to the front page but not this one, despite being very similar (other apps rejecting/submission have made the front page). On the other hand, it's hard to believe that anyone at apple or at&t would give a crap keeping this off of MR's front page when almost 1,000 other news sources (most of them much more widely viewed) are reporting the story as their top tech story.
so, just weird.
WiMAX!!! Hell no!
LTE is the future of 4G, not WiMAX.
Sprint is a flailing beast grasping at straws just to survive.
As for AT&T, the same comment would apply to any carrier Apple chose to use.
While I would love for Apple to buy a telco, it's just not gonna happen. I think that Apple views the business as too much of a pain in the ass. Plus it leaves Apple much more in a direct line to get blamed for any app rejections. Also what happens with competing devices that are under contract to that carrier?
It is unclear right now as to how much of a role Apple played in this decision. It seems from the word going around that Apple is defending AT&T.
Apple/MS/Google
Lets be honest here folks, they all have monopolistic tendencies. Apple doesn't allow many apps, including Firefox on iPhone, but MS is anti-competitive for shipping IE with Winders and freely allowing users to add browsers of choice. There is a clear double standard which we justify because Apple was the little guy. Now, the shoe is on the other foot.
GV has some very legit capabilities. Single number means that I will take home and office calls on my cell (read plan minutes) perhaps more often than I will take cell calls at home. The data use for this app is minimal. These are not the threats.
The only real threat is International calling and SMS. I never use ATT for International calling, I use Skype or call through my office using EC500. I work around SMS with IM+ and TextFree. GV would not change my use of ATT services.
Apple could have approved this with limits on SMS by blocking block Push for GV, or blocking the app unless SMS was removed from GV app on iPhone.
They see Android as a larger threat, but their reaction is likely to push people away. If I could get the same functionality that Android offered, I would still prefer iPhone. The more exclusive features they give Android, the more they differentiate and force us to make a choice. They certainly will not win new business because of this stand.
Will we see other Google apps to be dropped soon?...maybe it is time to reconsider an Android phone?
Lets be honest here folks, they all have monopolistic tendencies. Apple doesn't allow many apps, including Firefox on iPhone, but MS is anti-competitive for shipping IE with Winders and freely allowing users to add browsers of choice. There is a clear double standard which we justify because Apple was the little guy. Now, the shoe is on the other foot.
GV has some very legit capabilities. Single number means that I will take home and office calls on my cell (read plan minutes) perhaps more often than I will take cell calls at home. The data use for this app is minimal. These are not the threats.
The only real threat is International calling and SMS. I never use ATT for International calling, I use Skype or call through my office using EC500. I work around SMS with IM+ and TextFree. GV would not change my use of ATT services.
Apple could have approved this with limits on SMS by blocking block Push for GV, or blocking the app unless SMS was removed from GV app on iPhone.
They see Android as a larger threat, but their reaction is likely to push people away. If I could get the same functionality that Android offered, I would still prefer iPhone. The more exclusive features they give Android, the more they differentiate and force us to make a choice. They certainly will not win new business because of this stand.
Will we see other Google apps to be dropped soon?...maybe it is time to reconsider an Android phone?
+1
I am in the market to get a new phone. I thought the iPhone was the obvious choice, but this story made me pause and reconsider the Google phone. Unless Google adds some new functions pretty soon, I will probably still go with the iPhone. However, Apple should watch out. I love Apple products, but I will not buy them if I think there is something better out there. Google has continued to impress me with their products; much the same way Apple used to.
Umm, nokias were the worst, most restrictive phones Ive ever used. Their battery life sucked, Symbian is Cluncky and poorly designed. The makers are desperate to keep it alive.
Most GSM phones are Sim free.. even the iPhone. (Before it got locked by O2/Vodafone etc)
Ive used Android, WinMo and what ever Sony uses and theyre helluva lot better designed than Symbian.
Just to keep the trolling in perspective ...
The N95 is an excellent solution.
Let the lemings duke it out b/w Apple and Google in re: who's di*k they want to su*k.
The N95 is an excellent solution.
Let the lemings duke it out b/w Apple and Google in re: who's di*k they want to su*k.
Seriously dude, even with your manual censorship, that's nothing more than obvious trolling/flamebait. We don't need that kind of stuff on these boards.
jW
Attachments
Apple made a loyal slave out of you. Maybe they can control you remotely with their future product "iBrainControl" as well.
Everyone knows store is managed by Apple and but it is the only store where you can purchase sth for your phone. Either they should accept everything ( legal of course ) or allow people sell from directly their websites or alternative stores.
