Comments on Google Voice Rejection Filed Today, Google Under Scrutiny for Similar Actions?

[outphase]

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

I think it's an overgeneralization of the service. Yes, those services are free to use, but there is still some cost. To use calls, you must already have phone service. To use Voicemail and SMS, you must have data/internet service. At no point do any of these services require a cellular plan. Google Voice is still usable with your home Internet + landline.

 

[slu]

In the case of google, they might want you to use their own VoIP solution instead of skype.

Google Voice is not a VOIP service.

 

[iOrlando]

apple just filed ..... alot was kept confidential though...well i mean the whole thing was asked to be kept confidential..not surprisingly....




Apple Inc. (the “Company”) provides the following information in response to the comment contained in the correspondence of the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Staff”), dated March 3, 2008, relating to the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 29, 2007.

Because of the commercially sensitive nature of information contained herein, this submission is accompanied by a request for confidential treatment for selected portions of this letter. We have filed a separate letter with the Office of Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (the “FOIA Office”) in connection with the confidential treatment request, pursuant to Rule 83 of the Commission’s Rules on Information and Requests [17 C.F.R. § 200.83]. For the Staff’s reference, we have enclosed a copy of our letter to the FOIA Office (the “Request”) with this copy of the correspondence marked to show the portions redacted from the version filed via EDGAR and for which the Company is requesting confidential treatment.

In accordance with Rule 83, the Company requests confidential treatment of (a) the marked portions (the “Confidential Information”) of this response letter (the “Letter”) and (b) the accompanying Request letter (collectively, the “Confidential Material”). Please promptly inform the undersigned of any request for disclosure of the Confidential Material made pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act or otherwise so that the undersigned may substantiate the foregoing request for confidential treatment in accordance with Rule 83.

In accordance with Rule 83, this Letter has been clearly marked with the legend “Confidential Treatment Requested by Apple Inc.” and each page is marked for the record with the identifying numbers and code “AI-001” through “AI-007.”

 

[Doctor Q]

Why should any company be forced to help out a competitor at the expense of their own sales?

"Anti-competitive" practices have to be judged by a legal definition, and the phrase doesn't mean simply "hurting the competition". After all, making a better product hurts the competition, but nobody considers that wrong.

 

[mambodancer]

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.

I beg to differ. Mobile phones are manufactured in a lot higher quantities than laptops using, often times, the same parts found in PC's and other devices.

Edit: Here's a link to the parts cost breakdown for the iPhone 3G. About $173 for this version.

http://www.informationweek.com/blog...l;jsessionid=TZRE4OUSFGD55QE1GHPCKHWATMY32JVN

 

[outphase]

apple just filed ..... alot was kept confidential though...well i mean the whole thing was asked to be kept confidential..not surprisingly....




Apple Inc. (the “Company”) provides the following information in response to the comment contained in the correspondence of the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Staff”), dated March 3, 2008, relating to the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 29, 2007.

Huh? That's to the SEC and from last year.

 

[alent1234]

Very interesting about how Google is getting investigated too. It'd be nice if this led to some actual freedom on how we use these devices.

That would probably mean that prices would go up because the phone companies wouldn't want to subsidize them any longer. I wonder how the American public would react to that.

in 5 years LTE will probably be everywhere and from what i heard it's all data and you will just pay $70 per month as one line item

 

[intrepid00]

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!

Personally I think Ford should be allowed to Block non dealer oil changes and what you put in the trunk. It's their car, motor, etc.



I bet what I just said sounds messed up to you.

 

[nostradukemas]

in 5 years LTE will probably be everywhere and from what i heard it's all data and you will just pay $70 per month as one line item

I have a hard time believing American carriers would go for this because they can't nickel and dime for everything, which is their entire business model.

 

[BigJimmyC]

I have a hard time believing American carriers would go for this because they can't nickel and dime for everything, which is their entire business model.

True, but as soon as one company successfully works using a business model that offers a single-price, all-in fee, everybody else will have to follow suit because nobody will want to be on networks that don't offer that. That's why we have to root out anti-competitive practices, (such as what appears to be going on re: Google Voice and Skype) so that we will eventually get there.

 

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Google is nothing more than one giant ad machine...throwing banners and pop-up windows at the rest of us. Even they are protecting their own turf...and yet I don't blame them.

Make an effort to understand Google's advertising services *before* you make such hot-headed generalizations about it.

 

[gatepc]

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 don't agree. Should apple start blocking what applications we can install on osx? I mean after all its there os. You get the point I know the chances are slim but I would really really like to see google voice app be available to iphone users soon I really love google voice and am already using it as my main phone numbers its an amazing service. As far as I know I don't think it is a voip program it is just an advanced forwarding system for traditional phone networks.

 

[Master Chief]

And now read this statement made by Andy Rubin, Vice President, Mobile Platforms of Google:

===========================================================
I wanted to briefly set the record straight about an inaccurate claim in Friday's USA Today. The article stated:

"Consumers who use Android, the Google-developed operating system for wireless devices, can't use Skype, a leading Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service. A pioneer in free Internet calling, Skype allows you to talk as long as you want without draining cellphone minutes."

Here are the facts, clear and simple: While the first generation of our Android software did not support full-featured VoIP applications due to technology limitations, we have worked through those limitations in subsequent versions of Android, and developers are now able to build and upload VoIP services.

While individual operators can request that certain applications be filtered if they violate their terms of service, USA Today is wrong to say that:

"Google's explanation would seem to suggest that T-Mobile requested the block on Skype, but the carrier says that's not the case. "T-Mobile has not asked Google to block that service," says spokesman Joe Farren, referring to original Skype."

As we told USA Today earlier in the week Google did not reject an application from Skype or from any other company that provides VoIP services. To suggest otherwise is false. At this point no software developer -- including Skype -- has implemented a complete VoIP application for Android. But we're excited to see -- and use -- these applications when they're submitted, because they often provide more choice and options for users. We also look forward to the day when consumers can access any application, including VoIP apps, from any device, on any network.

 

[heisetax]

Apple is just replaying Microsoft

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.[/QUOTE]


If you feel that Apple has done no wrong with its monopoly contol of apps on the iPhone, then you are the one that believes to this day that MS did no wrong in how they got rid of Netscape. That means that MS paid Netscape for something that you believe is all right.

This stuff of Apple becoming another Microsoft must be stopped before it goes on too long.

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

Except it's not Apple that the FCC is worried about. It's AT&T.

 

[xDANx]

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. Furthermore, all the plans are in place. This is a "shovel ready" idea if I have ever heard one.

Rocketman

if the market can't provide the conditions for appropriate infrastructure development, why should public money be spent without public ownership in return?

nevermind that it's clearly to at&t's benefit to claim that their network is being overtaxed whether or not this is actually the case...there are no competitors (as far as the iphone is concerned, and very few in total anyway...oligopoly, cabal...call it what you will) for customers to jump to and such claims aid in justifying ridiculous data pricing.

 

[BaldiMac]

Personally I think Ford should be allowed to Block non dealer oil changes and what you put in the trunk. It's their car, motor, etc.

I bet what I just said sounds messed up to you.

It does sound messed up, because it is completely inane. It's not Ford's car, motor, etc. after the sale.

 

[genovelle]

what i don't understand about this whole thing is, if what we think is true as to why these apps are not be allowed in the app store (att somehow involved to protect profits) then why does it matter to att? i mean, you have to have the voice plan, what the hell is the difference to them if you use it or not and start using google voice or skype?! they're still getting your money; it's not like you can cancel your voice plan to save money and start using those services instead.

I really don't understand why no one seems to get this. I guess as someone who owns a business I can see the problem with this. AT&T sells a service that has tiers. The voice service is based on a certain number of minutes. They calculate how much bandwidth based on the number of minutes in a package. The internet is an optional service that uses the same signal. If 75% of your income is based on services you sell, why would you allow someone to create a way to use your bandwidth to support their income, while your customer who family uses 5000 minutes per month goes down to a 550 shared plan and used google voice on your network.

It makes no sense to me. The only people who would care are those that use a lot of minutes and want something for nothing. In the end if the government does force this, the prices for the basic service will go up to make up the difference, forcing those of us who don't use many minutes to pay much more.

Cheap people suck!

 

[BaldiMac]

Google Voice is not a VOIP service.

Google Voice is not primarily a VOIP service, but it does have some VOIP funcitionality. Evidenced by the ability to make international calls billed to your Google Voice account.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

I really don't understand why no one seems to get this. I guess as someone who owns a business I can see the problem with this. AT&T sells a service that has tiers. The voice service is based on a certain number of minutes. They calculate how much bandwidth based on the number of minutes in a package. The internet is an optional service that uses the same signal. If 75% of your income is based on services you sell, why would you allow someone to create a way to use your bandwidth to support their income, while your customer who family uses 5000 minutes per month goes down to a 550 shared plan and used google voice on your network.

It makes no sense to me. The only people who would care are those that use a lot of minutes and want something for nothing. In the end if the government does force this, the prices for the basic service will go up to make up the difference, forcing those of us who don't use many minutes to pay much more.

Cheap people suck!

It's not about being cheap, but having the service providers price their services appropriately. If data costs that much more than voice, then charge more for data (also, don't advertise unlimited and put a cap on it). Maybe if ATT didn't totally screw people with voice and text rates you wouldn't have people looking so hard to get around it. When it comes to texting their rates are by far the highest of any provider.

The other piece is that ATT is using PUBLIC airwaves for transmission. I know they lease them, but since the airwaves are public they do come with a few strings attached. These strings are to prevent natural monopolies and oligopolies from forming and controlling prices.

BTW, read up with GV actually is. It is NOT VOIP and you still use the same minutes that you would have. The only place it can save you substantially is in texting and international calls.

Google Voice is not primarily a VOIP service, but it does have some VOIP funcitionality. Evidenced by the ability to make international calls billed to your Google Voice account.

And you're also billed local rates on your cell phone. It no way does VOIP from you cell to Google. When you dial through GV it calls your cell phone. You answer the call and then you get connected. Think old school operator service.

BTW, the GV voicemail is what visual voice should have been (speech to text!).

 

[Stewie]

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!

Sorry but you are just wrong. Using your logic Apple can decide what software you can and can not run on your Apple comptuer. After all it is their OS and their hardware. That is not the path that we want to go down.

Apple needs to stop being such a dictator when it comes to what can and can't run on the iPhone. Unless that app doesn't work or some how can damage the iphone OS, they should not be blocking it. I am old enough to decide what I want to buy and run on the equipment that I bought and paid for.

 

[Mr. Zorg]

I tell you what is a crime... lack of PUSH GMail on the iPhone!

Hear, hear!

 

[LAS.mac]

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".

I do. I have installed Skype on my iPhone 3G. And use it to make international calls when I'm in places covered by wifi signal. It works flawlessly. And it saves me minutes, as well a lot of international calling rates.

 

[sdphotog]

Apple's Response

From apple's website: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/

 

[BaldiMac]

BTW, read up with GV actually is. It is NOT VOIP and you still use the same minutes that you would have. The only place it can save you substantially is in texting and international calls.

And you're also billed local rates on your cell phone. It no way does VOIP from you cell to Google. When you dial through GV it calls your cell phone. You answer the call and then you get connected. Think old school operator service.

I'm not sure why you are still saying that GV is not VOIP. You are correct that it is not VOIP from your cell to Google, but it is VOIP from Google to the person you are talking to. It does not save you cell minutes (except by routing calls away from you mobile phone when you are at a landline, which can be substantial).

It is also a call routing service.