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
hardly whiny to complain about being restricted.Yet ANOTHER whiny thread about how "AT&T and Apple" are horrible companies. I can see why this was rejected.
What this app allows is the "cheap" people a workaround to getting around having to pay for larger text message and minute plans, and from a business standpoint, I understand why it was rejected. These companies aren't out there to give us everything for free, the whole point of a business is to make a profit. If you want the phone, get it. If you don't like it, stop whining and get rid of it. Simple as that.
As for me, I'm perfectly happy with my phone just the way it is.
You have the right to use alternative LD providers. Essentially, GV gives you unlimited US LD. If that is why this was banned, then 'whining' about it is as valid as 'whining' if your local telco had the right to block you from using alternative long distance providers. The cell carriers overcharge for LD. Again, if this is why the apps were banned, that is BS. Protecting the ability to gouge your customers is not ok.
I am sure, that if Apple sent an announcement tomorrow, that the iPhone will be restricted to making calls only between the hours of 2am and 4am, there will still be a few drooling individuals, who will post here, that Apple is right, and we should all stop whining.
But on a more serious note: there are more than a dozen Android phones coming out before the end of the year.
They will have support for FLASH Player 10 (and thus access to a large portion of the web, which is unavailable on the iPhone,) and Google Voice.
And the Androids will not be locked. And likely the GPS chips in at least some of them will be more powerful that those used by Apple.
All in all, while I really like my two new 3G S phones, I am starting to wish I had waited for two or three months.
But on a more serious note: there are more than a dozen Android phones coming out before the end of the year.
They will have support for FLASH Player 10 (and thus access to a large portion of the web, which is unavailable on the iPhone,) and Google Voice.
And the Androids will not be locked. And likely the GPS chips in at least some of them will be more powerful that those used by Apple.
All in all, while I really like my two new 3G S phones, I am starting to wish I had waited for two or three months.
I still don't understand why AT&T would allow the app for the blackberry and not for the iPhone.
This is getting to be far too much. I'm deeply considering jumping to a Palm Pre at the end of my AT&T contract.
What does it matter? The effect is the same.
What does it matter? The effect is the same.
Yeah, I am not sure either.
Since most features that you had in the app are still available through Safari, it isn't like they are able to prevent you from using the service. At best, banning the apps just makes it more difficult.
I think the real reason is VVM and Push notifications.
GV offers really robust voicemail. If you had an app that allowed you to browse the voice mail in the same way that Apple's VVM allows you to and allowed you to read a transcription of this voice mail and further supported Push notifications when you received voice mail, then you have completely circumvented a very quite, yet gigantic cash cow for Apple.
GV Mobile was approved and out months ago. What changed? Well, to begin with, Push notifications. Now, you can be notified as soon as you have new voicemail, not just with an email but with the full Push Notifications infrastructure.
Why would Apple care? AT&T and other carriers pay Apple to deploy and support their servers for VVM. Every iPhone carrier has to put these in place. I am guessing, but it would make sense that Apple is also paid by the carriers for every subscriber to VVM. So, if GV apps provide a reason for you to drop your VVM service, then Apple loses a boadload of revenue.
It makes sense to me that Apple allowed these Apps as long as they were not impacting their bottom line. AT&T would have been complaining about this since or before they launched, yet Apple allowed them. Google submits their official app and it gets rejected and all other apps get dumped. maybe someone realized the official GV app would cost both Apple and AT&T some money.
If this is the case, I completely disagree with their actions. I would very likely have dropped VVM from my plan (separate option for me) and save $8 a month. But, banning these apps to avoid competing with them is just wrong. Whether it was banned because AT&T didn't want them competing for their over priced long distance charges or Apple and AT&T didn't want to lose the lucrative VVM revenue, it is still wrong. Competition is always good for consumers. They should have competed and improved. Lower prices and adding to Apple's VVM would have been a good start. Instead, they took the easy route and bar competition. nice.
Awesome. I never felt the need to jailbreak my phone before, but this puts me over the top. And Cycorder will be an added benefit. Can't wait to try it.
Interesting thought. I would probably keep VVM and use Google Voice to read my voicemail only at times when listening isn't workable, such as, for example, in a business meeting, and I would have to think that plenty of others would make the same choice. Also, there are other features of GV that wouldn't seem to involve push notification but would be nice to have--why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
I don't have Google Voice (have requested an invite) but can you have it email you voicemail transcripts when you get them? That would take away my need for having push notifications...
Depending on how good GV voicemail is, I would consider keeping iPhone VVM too. But, if it allows me to browse and listen to all voice mail in the same way that iPhone VVM does and further allows transcriptions and does this all well, what reason would I have to continue paying for VVM? Not everyone has this option, to drop VVM from their package, so my idea is likely full of water. But, if it is an option for a significant number of people, then those people dropping it has to be a concern.
Some of the other feature might also have been problematic from AT&T and/or Apple's point of view. Specifically, the free long distance. I am not suggesting VVM was the only reason nor even the main reason (ok, I guess I did..). But, along with the other suspect reasons we have, it could have been the catalyst or the final straw.
Google Voice automatically emails you voicemail transcripts. I like it because you can listen to the message AND read an almost correct transcript -- at least the transcripts do capture the numbers pretty well.
One can do it all with one but it's too much maintenance to have one number tied to one email. I have many "groups/categories" of callers. It also gives me a lot of control. I have it as
1. one GV number tied to my personal email. Depending on who calls, I decide which combination of 3 phones to ring. All the unknown numbers go to my Home phone.
2. another GV number tied to my work email. They only ring my Home Office except for Co-workers (which rings my cell phone too).
Yet ANOTHER whiny thread about how "AT&T and Apple" are horrible companies. I can see why this was rejected.
What this app allows is the "cheap" people a workaround to getting around having to pay for larger text message and minute plans, and from a business standpoint, I understand why it was rejected. These companies aren't out there to give us everything for free, the whole point of a business is to make a profit. If you want the phone, get it. If you don't like it, stop whining and get rid of it. Simple as that.
As for me, I'm perfectly happy with my phone just the way it is.
We already pay a large sum of money for the data plan. The fact that we also have to pay for a text plan is a little ridiculous. Besides, this is less about the "making money" part, more about stifling innovation. The control over the app store was billed to be about keeping garbage/unstable programs from making it onto the phones. In fact, this move is totally about stifling innovation in the name of making a few bucks that they were essentially forcing us to pay because we were crazy enough about the phone to do it. Most other phone plans (well at least the last one I had with AT&T) didn't even charge anything for SMS once you purchased unlimited data...at the very least they would give you enough if you weren't a heavy texter (like myself). This is totally about AT&T fleecing us because they can. The sooner Apple sheds this ridiculous partnership, the better.
Like hell it wasn't Apple. They have absolute authority on what applications get accepted or rejected from their App Store.
Quick being an Apple apologist.
I was so looking forward to the official google voice app. Now...
GVmobile will do the job for now. Come one, apple!
GVmobile will do the job for now. Come one, apple!
That's because you bought the lie.
AT&T gets blamed for everything. What if the real reason why Apple rejected the full feature slingplayer (i.e. streaming videos via 3G), not because of AT&T --- but because Apple TV competes with slingplayer.
What if? If what way, shape or form does AppleTV compete with SlingPlayer? What featureset overlaps? Beside, the app was approved once it was modified not to use 3G....so, not at all a requirement that benefited Apple in any way.
Apple should be as annoyed with AT&T as we all are with Apple, if AT&T really did block the app.
This is seriously hurting the platform. AT&T already have VOIP revenue safeguards by requiring these apps to run over WiFi only, and nothing AT&T says or does applies to the iPod Touch. I hope Apple uses the threat of a Verizon-exclusive tablet to push AT&T in to playing by their own rules.
This is seriously hurting the platform. AT&T already have VOIP revenue safeguards by requiring these apps to run over WiFi only, and nothing AT&T says or does applies to the iPod Touch. I hope Apple uses the threat of a Verizon-exclusive tablet to push AT&T in to playing by their own rules.
AT&T doesn't get to "allow" or "disallow" applications for the BlackBerry - there is no central source for BlackBerry applications like the App Store. BlackBerry users can download and install applications without having them authorized through AT&T, RIM, or any third party.
What if Apple wants to put those slingplayer featuresets into a future version of AppleTV.
No but it AT&T's job should not be "App Police". It is Apple's fault that they locked it down so AT&T could control over apps. At first I thought it was a good idea to lock down the iPhone because of potential malware like Apple has said. But now I see that it is more important to have an avenue available where the carriers (and Apple) don't control. Interestingly Palm is going the same route with the Pre.
Right now I'm going to sit back and wait awhile to see what kind of Android phones become available in the next few months. I'm a half step away from just cutting my ties with the iPhone altogether.