Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't understand why there is an investigation of the rejection of Google voice. Why would that represent anti-competitive practices? It seems to me that the rejection of calendar apps or other apps that Apple rejects because they're similar to apps already on the iphone would be more anti-competitive than the rejection of Google voice. Am I right? Or am I right? Or am I right?

NIB HIGH FOOTBALL RULES!!!
 
Since the root of the problem is peak hour network bandwidth shortages, not handset, software or even network addressability issues, how about the government give Apple, Google, and AT&T a $10B GRANT for network backhaul upgrades and rural wireless internet access?

The 10 second solution to the problem. They can wire the funds this afternoon.

Rocketman

It will never happen...because that would make too much sense :)
 
That's funny about Tmo denying that they told Google to block those. It doesn't make any sense for google to want it disabled.

Google should just release it then and tell Tmo that if they want it blocked they would like it in writing. Same with Apple and AT&T. Enough of this he said she said.
 
I don't understand why there is an investigation of the rejection of Google voice. Why would that represent anti-competitive practices? It seems to me that the rejection of calendar apps or other apps that Apple rejects because they're similar to apps already on the iphone would be more anti-competitive than the rejection of Google voice. Am I right? Or am I right? Or am I right?

NIB HIGH FOOTBALL RULES!!!

That's the same thing... They said they rejected it because it was too much like the Phone app.
 
I personally think Apple should be allowed to Block what they want. It's their OS, Phone etc.

But AT&T uses public airwaves which are a finate source and belong to the taxpayers.

The government has every right to determine how those airwaves are used. They are VERY valuable and as a taxpayer, I want them used in a fair way. Otherwise we can let some other company have them.

It seems to me that the rejection of calendar apps or other apps that Apple rejects because they're similar to apps already on the iphone would be more anti-competitive than the rejection of Google voice.

That has nothing to do with using public airwaves for communication, so no, it's nothing like this.
 
I hope AT&T goes down hard for this one. I just want somebody to smack the holy hell out of them as a company..... they do so many $#!tty things to the customers. I wish the iPhone was on Verison but I know they couldn't handle the load.:(:eek:

Because Verizon is perfect!! :rolleyes:

I continue to forget that Verizon is the miracle cell network where everyone skips around in sunny meadows with big smiles on their faces [/hyperbole]
 
Who here even uses any of the VOIP product with their iPhone? I have Truephone installed but I have yet to find a need to use it beyond my initial test call. Google voice is limited to the US anyway so it would be AT&T to blame for it being rejected.

Governments are wasting tax payer dollars on this sort of "investigation".


If you ever traveled(abroad), especially if you were a traveling consultant and you wanted to talk to your family and think that $2 a min is ridiculous, then skype is for you. If you live with your parents, then not so much. Skype to phone charges me pennies per minute when I call back to the United States. The only problem is finding a hot spot. Usually I have one in the hotel room anyways.
We also use skype to speak to family abroad as well. Its great when you can run skype in the background(cydia) and just wait for calls.
 
I personally think Apple should be allowed to Block what they want. It's their OS, Phone etc.
Same with Google. Although, I see Google as more 'open source' whereas Apple... No. Not at all!

I completely agree! Also, Microsoft should not have been made to unbundle Internet Explorer or cited for uncompetitive practices. Boo!!! Hiss!!!
 
I personally think Apple should be allowed to Block what they want. It's their OS, Phone etc.
Same with Google. Although, I see Google as more 'open source' whereas Apple... No. Not at all!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you buy the phone shouldn't you be able to put whatever you want on it? If you bought a MacBook would you want Apple telling you which programs you could put on it and which you couldn't?

The only way I could see them having any say at all would be if you were under contract, but I think that would be more AT&T than Apple (which this may be).

And I have a question, does anyone know if AT&T blocks Skype on a computer if you use one of their wireless data cards? If they don't then I don't see where they have any case.
 
As much as I like Apple, I applaud Obama's FCC for having a backbone.

Hope this will open up the cell network to VOIP (however semi-reliable it is at this point in time).
 
Because Verizon is perfect!! :rolleyes:

I continue to forget that Verizon is the miracle cell network where everyone skips around in sunny meadows with big smiles on their faces [/hyperbole]

No but Verizon is better. You show me any report that says AT&T is better or on par with Verizon. In fact most rank AT&T a distant 3rd. Ideally the iPhone should be available on all carriers because one carrier can't handle the load.
 
As with previous posts regarding GV, people are still misunderstanding what GV is. The app has one primary function and that is to allow convenient use of your GV number. It does not bypass the cellular network to make voice calls. It is not functionally different from using the web interface. Lack of the app does not magically block an iPhone user from using GV.

The apps (Voice Central, GV Mobile and... one other one I forget along with the official GV app) were intended to make using GV convenient and easy. How that "duplicates features" is beyond me. That would be like saying the Wikipedia app duplicates features because http://m.wikipedia.org is accessible via Safari.

Also, don't forget that part of this issue is that the 3 previous apps were unceremoniously REMOVED from the App Store. They were previously approved and sold but were removed when the official Google app was rejected.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you buy the phone shouldn't you be able to put whatever you want on it? If you bought a MacBook would you want Apple telling you which programs you could put on it and which you couldn't?

The only way I could see them having any say at all would be if you were under contract, but I think that would be more AT&T than Apple (which this may be).

And I have a question, does anyone know if AT&T blocks Skype on a computer if you use one of their wireless data cards? If they don't then I don't see where they have any case.

You SHOULD be able to. But currently the only way to use the iPhone's full capabilities and put the stuff you want on it is by jailbreaking...which voids the warranty. :(
 
I agree. I've really about had it with the whining on this issue. Apple controls the platform end to end. You knew that when you bought the phone and signed the contract. Apple never promised approval of every app. Yeah it would be nice if they had approved it, but I think it's bull the FCC is involved. If this is such a terrible thing then it will drive iphone customers to platforms that allow GV, and Apple will be forced to relent.

Ma Bell used to control the POTs platform end to end. Would you rather everyone still use them for landline access (btw, you also were forced to buy your telephone from ma bell too)?

This is exactly the case that the FCC is supposed to look for. These companies have been granted leases to a public spectrum so they have to fall under some rules about what is best for the consumer. If there was some way for Apple/ATT to not use public airwaves for communication then I might be apt to agree with you.
 
Not necessarily. I find it hard to believe that a smart phone costs as much as some low end laptops. I find it more likely that the prices are higher in order to maintain profit margins.

Personally, I would rather pay more for an unsubsidized phone and have the freedom to use how I want, with whatever carrier I want. I also believe that very quickly any initial rise in prices will be offset by the competitive nature of retail.

You really don't understand that? Miniaturization of devices that are made of products that are sold in extremely less quantity are always going to cost a lot more that products like a laptop constructed of items that are sold in quantity. Econ 101. What you're actually seeing if the cost of laptops dropping to ridiculously low prices because the tech has caught up with sales and they're just a commodity.

A few years ago were you amazed that a less powered laptop with less ram and no dvd burner cost more than a xeon tower? Of course not.
 
Yes... let's all do our best to screw the carriers. It's obviously AT&T blocking it because if it was available, the company would lose millions of dollars while people exploit the unlimited use of data network to use it.

Watch your network quality and phone subsidies (on ALL networks) drop to holy hell because everyone with a smartphone lowers their voice plan to the lowest thing possible and uses Google Voice instead.

As much as everyone likes to hate them, they need to make money too. They especially need to make money so we can all enjoy our little smartphones and complain about why network upgrades (which cost hundreds of millions, if not Billions of dollars) aren't completed quicker for us.

There's no such thing as a FREE lunch... someone pays for it. In the end, the consumer will suffer for being cheap pricks. Like the person that walks into a cell phone store and gets the Free phone, and then wonders why it sucks so much and stops working right after 7 months. Cheap is expensive.

The really bad:
If we take advantage of the carriers TOO much, they might start charging by the minute for data instead of letting us use it as much as we want. They'll make their profits somehow... but we'll all pay for it big time.
 
I tell ya my problem is this whole "unlimited" data thing. Don't advertise it if you can't handle it. And if you have to raise the price to give out the real thing, then offer different levels so you can afford to up your network so it is possible. The cable internet folks like charter and comcast do the same thing. Unlimited, until you use too much. WTF?

So if I have an unlimited data connection sell it like I'm going to be using it 24/7 to watch video or upload MMS. That's what the FCC should be looking into. And they are in a sense.
 
Yes... let's all do our best to screw the carriers. It's obviously AT&T blocking it because if it was available, the company would lose millions of dollars while people exploit the unlimited use of data network to use it.

Watch your network quality and phone subsidies (on ALL networks) drop to holy hell because everyone with a smartphone lowers their voice plan to the lowest thing possible and uses Google Voice instead.

As much as everyone likes to hate them, they need to make money too. They especially need to make money so we can all enjoy our little smartphones and complain about why network upgrades (which cost hundreds of millions, if not Billions of dollars) aren't completed quicker for us.

There's no such thing as a FREE lunch... someone pays for it. In the end, the consumer will suffer for being cheap pricks. Like the person that walks into a cell phone store and gets the Free phone, and then wonders why it sucks so much and stops working right after 7 months. Cheap is expensive.

The really bad:
If we take advantage of the carriers TOO much, they might start charging by the minute for data instead of letting us use it as much as we want. They'll make their profits somehow... but we'll all pay for it big time.

You do not understand how google voice works.

Google Voice is not a VOIP. Google voice uses your minutes. All google voice is is a phone number and it forwards a call to any number of other phones. Now VOIP I could see the careers having issue with because people will not use their minute.

ATT should not have an issue with google voice because they dont have a "my favs" set up like T-mobile and verizon. People could set up Google voice as a one of there favs and all call become free because to the carrier all incoming and outgoing numbers would be the google voice number.
 
No but Verizon is better. You show me any report that says AT&T is better or on par with Verizon. In fact most rank AT&T a distant 3rd. Ideally the iPhone should be available on all carriers because one carrier can't handle the load.

You show me a NON-BIASED report that shows Verizon is better than ATT. Each company claims to be better than the other.

While I agree that the iPhone should be spread out over several networks, I also argue that some of ATTs network issues likely come from so many data hungry iPhones being active on its network. While I still think ATTs network is great, it's hard to know what Verizon's network would be like if so many iPhones were on it (and not on ATT). We just don't know. We can speculate all we want to...
 
Most of the sites I've seen confuse Google Voice as a VoIP service. You're correct, AT&T is not blocking the calls to your phone; but somebody (either Apple or AT&T) is blocking the Google Voice App for iPhone, which allows you to SMS free through your GV number, get essentially a Visual Voicemail for your GV account, and make phone calls (still using your minutes, as it calls your phone to connect the call) to the contacts on your phone through your GV number.

-rand()

So You're saying google is lying about the free calls and voicemail, and sms?
so i'm actually still paying for all of them?!??!

uncool for google. even though sooner or later, I'll work for them :p
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.