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

[slu]

Apple's rejection reasons for Google Voice are BS.

User experience - this is lame because you choose to sign up for GV, you choose to install the GV app. It is not forced on you. I should be able to choose my own user experience. It is also lame because it does not "replace" and functionality of the phone. The standard iPhone software is still there. I would just choose not to use it. And no calls, voice mails or text messages sent to your AT&T number are routed anywhere.

User data privacy - this is crap because, again I have to choose to sign up, install the app, and share my contacts with Google. Just like I have to choose to sync my contacts with google in iTunes! I am waiting for Apple to disable this feature in the next iTunes release. Even though I chose to sync my contacts with Google, apparently Apple knows best and they are not to be trusted.

I always thought Apple was the bad guy here. At least they admit it. They just don't want competition.

 

[outphase]

Apple's rejection reasons for Google Voice are BS.

User experience - this is lame because you choose to sign up for GV, you choose to install the GV app. It is not forced on you. I should be able to choose my own user experience. It is also lame because it does not "replace" and functionality of the phone. The standard iPhone software is still there. I would just choose not to use it. And no calls, voice mails or text messages sent to your AT&T number are routed anywhere.

User data privacy - this is crap because, again I have to choose to sign up, install the app, and share my contacts with Google. Just like I have to choose to sync my contacts with google in iTunes! I am waiting for Apple to disable this feature in the next iTunes release. Even though I chose to sync my contacts with Google, apparently Apple knows best and they are not to be trusted.

I always thought Apple was the bad guy here. At least they admit it. They just don't want competition.

I highly doubt the GV app uploaded your contacts to google. None of the other GV apps did it. It just allowed a streamlined dialing system. In fact, Google Sync does more uploading to Google than any GV app has.

These responses from Apple and AT&T were cold and calculated to paint each one as a "victim" of the situation.

 

[Stately]

AT&T's iphone plans are the second cheapest in the G7.

Oh, so all that AT&T has done is right Wow. So if your cool with $130 phone bills wen they should be 82, having someone govern what you put on your phone and/or how it is used and charging you extra every time you want to use certain features that are free on other phones then cool lol, be my guest. I don't care if I have billions, I would still drop it and wait for another carrier to pick it up. Thanks for your input there though buddy.

 

[Stately]

Wow, are people on this post brainwashed by AT&T or sumthn? Lol, or is it possible that some of you work for them? Hey if your happy, stay. I'm just stating facts.

 

[Stately]

Uh, because Apple wants it that way and they have a contract with AT&T. Why are their plans ridiculous ? What tips would those be ?

Because Apple wants it that way? So they want to limit options to their customers? That doesn't make sense. Being locked into a prior agreement is one thing, desiring to do so is another.

 

[str1f3]

Where are the lies over Slingplayer exactly?

From Apple:



Essentially: AT&T doesn't get very involved with the App Store process, but AT&T are allowed to 'voice concerns' which Apple will listen to - no lie there.

From AT&T:



Basically: AT&T doesn't tend to get involved, but it has on rare occasions - no lie there either.

From Engadget:
-SlingPlayer Mobile was "initially rejected because redirecting a TV signal to an iPhone using AT&T's cellular network is prohibited by AT&T's customer Terms of Service." [That's pretty much the opposite of what AT&T promised us.

BS. AT&T changed the TOS after the app was submitted and it was meant specifically for the Slingplayer.

AT&T prohibits television redirection like SlingPlayer Mobile to "safeguard service quality" because "video apps typically do not make any attempt to minimize the frame rate of the content." [Again, that explains SlingPlayer Mobile's rejection, but it's the exact opposite of what AT&T's told us in the past. -- ed.]

This is more BS from AT&T. These apps are already allowed on other devices with no complaints from AT&T.

Why exactly would Apple lie to the FCC? To defend AT&T? Come on.

How about a major fine? How about avoiding deeper investigations into Apple's practices and more gov't interventions into the practices of the cell phone industry in general? How about protecting the carrier they are tied to?

 

[samab]

Oh, so all that AT&T has done is right Wow. So if your cool with $130 phone bills wen they should be 82, having someone govern what you put on your phone and/or how it is used and charging you extra every time you want to use certain features that are free on other phones then cool lol, be my guest. I don't care if I have billions, I would still drop it and wait for another carrier to pick it up. Thanks for your input there though buddy.

Compared with the rest of the world --- American cell phone plans are very cheap.

Compared with the rest of the world --- American cell phone carriers don't have much market share. Verizon and AT&T --- TOGETHER --- own 60% of the US cell phone service market. Japan's NTT Docomo ---- ALONE --- owns over 50% of the Japanese cell phone service market. France Telecom and T-Mobile both own about 45% of their home market in France and Germany.

 

[samab]

Wow, are people on this post brainwashed by AT&T or sumthn? Lol, or is it possible that some of you work for them? Hey if your happy, stay. I'm just stating facts.

And why are you so dead against the carriers?

Apple, Google and AT&T are about the same size in market capitalization.

Apple and Google are individually twice as big as Verizon.

 

[MacMan86]

From Engadget:
-SlingPlayer Mobile was "initially rejected because redirecting a TV signal to an iPhone using AT&T's cellular network is prohibited by AT&T's customer Terms of Service." [That's pretty much the opposite of what AT&T promised us.

BS. AT&T changed the TOS after the app was submitted and it was meant specifically for the Slingplayer.

AT&T prohibits television redirection like SlingPlayer Mobile to "safeguard service quality" because "video apps typically do not make any attempt to minimize the frame rate of the content." [Again, that explains SlingPlayer Mobile's rejection, but it's the exact opposite of what AT&T's told us in the past. -- ed.]

What if AT&T hadn't thought through the prospect of having to serve so much data to a considerable number of iPhone users when they wrote the TOS? TOS's change and adapt over time as usage habits change. OK so they shouldn't have used the TOS excuse until they had changed their TOS, but would you have found it unreasonable if they'd changed their TOS first?

The iPhone is the first phone to really make use of cellular data, most phone users before the iPhone didn't use data because of the inconvenience on their handset. The iPhone changed that. I just don't think AT&T had forseen apps like Slingplayer

 

[MacMan86]

Compared with the rest of the world --- American cell phone plans are very cheap.

Really? Here in the UK I pay £35 ($57) per month for my iPhone and I get free, unlimited data, 600 mins and 500 texts. Not to mention I don't have to pay to receive texts...

From what I understand it costs around twice as much in the US. Paying to receive SMS alone would outrage anyone in the UK

 

[samab]

Really? Here in the UK I pay £35 ($57) per month for my iPhone and I get free, unlimited data, 600 mins and 500 texts. Not to mention I don't have to pay to receive texts...

From what I understand it costs around twice as much in the US. Paying to receive SMS alone would outrage anyone in the UK

Didn't I just say that AT&T has the 2nd cheapest iphone plans in the G7?

UK has the cheapest iphone plans in the G7 countries.

 

[str1f3]

What if AT&T hadn't thought through the prospect of having to serve so much data to a considerable number of iPhone users when they wrote the TOS? TOS's change and adapt over time as usage habits change. OK so they shouldn't have used the TOS excuse until they had changed their TOS, but would you have found it unreasonable if they'd changed their TOS first?

The iPhone is the first phone to really make use of cellular data, most phone users before the iPhone didn't use data because of the inconvenience on their handset. The iPhone changed that. I just don't think AT&T had forseen apps like Slingplayer

You're making excuses for AT&T. This is slimy behavior in changing the rules of the game when it suits your interests. How many people do you know actually know what a Slingbox is? The TOS that they are applying was meant solely for the Slingbox app on the iPhone. All other platforms that have it work on 3G.

I didn't force AT&T to sign an exclusivity deal. The same deal btw that they still want to make with Apple. I don't want to hear the ease of use issue anymore. More and more serious competitors are coming out everyday and learning from the iPhone and they still have full access to the app on 3G. It's not like Slingplayer can't make the same interface and UI for any other platform. The only ease of use Apple is giving you is the downloading of the app from the App Store which other platforms are already doing.

BTW we also know they are lying because John Gruber already stated from his sources (which are the best on Apple) that AT&T was the reason behind the Google Voice rejection.

 

[NoExpectations]

Sorry all you Apple Fanboys.....

....who think that Apple can do no wrong. Guess what?....GUILTY once again. Maybe you can make Apple feel better by writing them another check for $1000.

So, not only does Apple demand we purchase Apps thru them (with a 30% extortion rate) but now we have proof that they only want us to see what they, the Gods, want us to see.

 

[samab]

You're making excuses for AT&T. This is slimy behavior in changing the rules of the game when it suits your interests. How many people do you know actually know what a Slingbox is? The TOS that they are applying was meant solely for the Slingbox app on the iPhone. All other platforms that have it work on 3G.

I didn't force AT&T to sign an exclusivity deal. The same deal btw that they still want to make with Apple. I don't want to hear the ease of use issue anymore. More and more serious competitors are coming out everyday and learning from the iPhone and they still have full access to the app on 3G. It's not like Slingplayer can't make the same interface and UI for any other platform. The only ease of use Apple is giving you is the downloading of the app from the App Store which other platforms are already doing.

BTW we also know they are lying because John Gruber already stated from his sources (which are the best on Apple) that AT&T was the reason behind the Google Voice rejection.

Good for the carriers.

Somehow you think that Silicon Valley billionaires who have more money than god --- gets the right to boss the carriers around and make the carriers obsolete.

Aside from AT&T, every single carrier in the world are much much much smaller than Apple and Google.

 

[w00master]

Ummm yes I did read it and it was full of more BS. Apple had already known what Google Voice is and what it does. That was why Phil Schiller already agreed to put it on the App Store. Are you that naive to believe that Apple didn't know what Google Voice was and still doesn't know what it does today? Suddenly Apple is concerned about user data when they've had such a close relationship with Google over the past few years? Are you telling me that as tough as the App Store process is they managed to allow these apps on the store for the past two months with nobody knowing what it does? Please.

First off, I misinterpreted your post. I had thought you were placing all of the blame solely on AT&T. This is why I responded thusly. Again, I misinterpreted what you were saying. Apologies.

However, I will say that in terms of the Google Voice situation, perhaps what you are saying is true, but as of right now with both sides telling their story (AT&T and Apple), it SEEMS that Apple is far more to blame then AT&T. There's clearly some subterfuge happening on both sides, however I have doubts we'll ever know the true story.

Secondly, Apple and AT&T are being dishonest about Slingplayer. The Slingplayer app was already submitted to App Store before the terms of service changed. AT&T made the TOS explicitly for the Slingbox. After the press got wind of it, AT&T removed it and then proceeding to sneak it back in two weeks later and citing TOS as the reason for the rejection. AT&T has already admitted they've had involvement with the rejection of the Slingplayer app. After all of this Slingbox still works on other platforms on AT&T with 3g.

Now you're talking about stuff that I wasn't responding to, and here I'm in complete agreement

You are believing whatever Apple and AT&T are saying and it is utter garbage.

I don't, however thus far we don't have any *evidence* to the contrary. Right now (in terms of the GVoice situation), it *seems* that Apple is more to blame than AT&T. We'll see how it all turns up.

By the way (side note here), why the hositility? I actually agree with most of your points, but the rabid response here on this issue seems a bit intense. I'm *HIGHLY* angered by the whole App store situation. I REALLY do not want to move to another platform, but right now I'm very unhappy with Apple (being upset with AT&T at this point is a bit obvious and cliche... lol).

w00master

 

[MacMan86]

...BTW we also know they are lying because John Gruber already stated from his sources (which are the best on Apple) that AT&T was the reason behind the Google Voice rejection.

I'm sorry but I just don't think that both companies are outright lying. Why would both Apple and AT&T risk the terrible PR of being caught lying to the FCC? Nothing can be worth that risk surely? I just can't imagine Apple going to these lengths to take the blame away from AT&T and put it onto themselves. If it was AT&T's fault, blame them - there are other carriers out there if things turn sour.

If these 'sources' ever turned out to be true, the damage done to these companies would be irreparable and presumably there would be a large fine to pay? I just can't see them being that reckless

 

[str1f3]

I'm sorry but I just don't think that both companies are outright lying. Why would both Apple and AT&T risk the terrible PR of being caught lying to the FCC? Nothing can be worth that risk surely? I just can't imagine Apple going to these lengths to take the blame away from AT&T and put it onto themselves. If it was AT&T's fault, blame them - there are other carriers out there if things turn sour.

If these 'sources' ever turned out to be true, the damage done to these companies would be irreparable and presumably there would be a large fine to pay? I just can't see them being that reckless

We've had the housing industry almost collapse, narrowly avoiding a depression, and watched a banks go under due to stupidity and greed. As smart as Apple is, they can also get caught in the same thing. It's not as if these other companies were filled with idiots.

As for Gruber's sources, they have proven to be reliable. He is so respected that it is worthy of a response from Phil Schiller himself.

 

[str1f3]

First off, I misinterpreted your post. I had thought you were placing all of the blame solely on AT&T. This is why I responded thusly. Again, I misinterpreted what you were saying. Apologies.

However, I will say that in terms of the Google Voice situation, perhaps what you are saying is true, but as of right now with both sides telling their story (AT&T and Apple), it SEEMS that Apple is far more to blame then AT&T. There's clearly some subterfuge happening on both sides, however I have doubts we'll ever know the true story.



Now you're talking about stuff that I wasn't responding to, and here I'm in complete agreement



I don't, however thus far we don't have any *evidence* to the contrary. Right now (in terms of the GVoice situation), it *seems* that Apple is more to blame than AT&T. We'll see how it all turns up.

By the way (side note here), why the hositility? I actually agree with most of your points, but the rabid response here on this issue seems a bit intense. I'm *HIGHLY* angered by the whole App store situation. I REALLY do not want to move to another platform, but right now I'm very unhappy with Apple (being upset with AT&T at this point is a bit obvious and cliche... lol).

w00master

Sorry for the misunderstanding. My anger spreads to all three companies including Google. They mantra is to do no evil yet they have kept suspiciously quietly through all of this and there are blank holes in the statements that were released to the public by the FCC. There is something rotten going on here and everybody's feet should be held to the fire.

 

[BaldiMac]

The FCC isn't "worried". They are conducting an investigation into whether anybody violated the law. Apple, AT&T and Google are part of that investigation.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you just arguing semantics? Should I have used a synonym such as "concerned"?

My point was that the point of the FCC investigation was to determine if AT&T in any way influenced the rejection of the GV apps. As long as Apple rejected the app completely on their own, the FCC should have no problem with the situation.

 

[BaldiMac]

....who think that Apple can do no wrong. Guess what?....GUILTY once again. Maybe you can make Apple feel better by writing them another check for $1000.

Guilty of what?

So, not only does Apple demand we purchase Apps thru them (with a 30% extortion rate) but now we have proof that they only want us to see what they, the Gods, want us to see.

Your obviously not a developer if you think the amount that developers pay to list their apps in the App Store is extortion. It's one of the best deals available.

Apple said from the beginning that they were going to approve all apps. It took this statement to convince you? The fact that they have final approval wasn't exactly sprung on you late in the game.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

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.

Ugh, it's not VOIP in the sense that you are using the phones data connection to make the call (you are not). In general, when people say something is VOIP they are talking about the final connection to the phone. By your definition I would bet a large majority of all phone calls are VOIP since many get routed over VOIP at some point.

 

[kdarling]

The answers tell the FCC everything, but now what?

Their responses have told the FCC exactly what they wanted to find out: that ATT does indeed have input on what apps Apple should approve or not.

The "correct" alternative response should've been, "No, we never talk about any app before it is approved and would never remove one even if ATT asked". Instead, they admitted that Apple takes ATT's concerns into consideration, and that ATT is sometimes consulted about approvals and rejections.

It doesn't matter if contractually speaking, ATT doesn't have final approval power. Anyone who's spent time making decisions like these, knows very well that if your partner expresses concern, that's enough to know they're saying "no". You don't need (or want) anything more concrete, so you still have plausible denial.

Now, the only question is, does the FCC really care, or were they just playing to the public.

 

[BaldiMac]

Ugh, it's not VOIP in the sense that you are using the phones data connection to make the call (you are not). In general, when people say something is VOIP they are talking about the final connection to the phone. By your definition I would bet a large majority of all phone calls are VOIP since many get routed over VOIP at some point.

Isn't that what I said? It's not a traditional VOIP service. It does have some VOIP functionality. I specifically acknowledged that the calls are not VOIP from your mobile phone to Google.

 

[samab]

BTW we also know they are lying because John Gruber already stated from his sources (which are the best on Apple) that AT&T was the reason behind the Google Voice rejection.

Except that John Gruber has changed his position now --- and accepted that this is a competitiveness between Apple and Google (and nothing to do with AT&T).

http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/apples_fcc_response

 

[Bjohnson33]

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've used it to talk to family back in Canada while I'm in Ireland. I was pleasantly surprised at how well Skype worked on the iPhone over my broadband connection.