Did Google pre-emptively block a 4g iphone on Verizon?

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by tigress666, Feb 25, 2011.

  1. tigress666 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    Washington State
    #1
  2. TEG macrumors 604

    TEG

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2002
    Location:
    Langley, Washington
    #2
    If this rule was actually enforced, it would also preclude the ability for VZW to offer WebOS, Windows 7, or Android devices, as all apps for those devices require the same signing that Apple iOS apps require, just little to no DRM.

    TEG
     
  3. tucker3434 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    #3
    I would guess that won't be an issue. Verizon wouldn't have wasted their time on a one generation device, which is what this would be if AT&T went 4g and VZW didn't.
     
  4. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #4
    I did not realize this until I read the article. Wow, Google did screw Verizon if the FCC upholds the ruling as Google intends.

    Apple won't be happy about it and may well through at Verizon the watered down version of the iPhone and AT&T may get the full blown, as intended design. After all, thats how it is currently.

    Verizon didn't get the full iPhone, they got a version that works on their network minus some of the features the iPhone has championed.
     
  5. Small White Car macrumors G4

    Small White Car

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Washington DC
    #5
    Non issue.

    It clearly says it applies to the "C Block licensee."

    That's Verizon. That means they can't allow Face-Time but then block Skype video chat. They'd be able to get away with blocking ALL video chat since they could argue they have to, but they couldn't play favorites with some apps over others.

    Anyway, the point is that it refers to the licensee which is NOT Apple. They can allow or block whatever they want on their devices. The law refers to the network access, not the hardware.

    I'm no lawyer but I feel the author made a HUGE leap of logic without any justification. You know how I feel safe saying that? Because he put a question mark on the title. Sounds like he already knows it's a stretch, doesn't it?
     
  6. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #6
    Maybe so, but he did mention that it pertains down to the phone level. The licensee has to allow any and all apps that don't harm the network on any device. That means, even if Apple has rules in place, Verizon is bounded by law to allow the non-Apple sanctioned ones as long as no network damage is made.

    Apple may have made the device, but it runs on Block C which has rules. It's like saying I buy a Ford Focus that has a manufacturer limitation of 60 Mi/Hr for State A; however, if a rule in State B's road speed laws make the dealer remove the limitation to allow a higher 70 Mi/Hr, then the dealer has to abide, even if the car came at a lower setting.
     
  7. Small White Car macrumors G4

    Small White Car

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Washington DC
    #7
    Exactly

    And re-read what you just wrote. There is nothing in your post that says Apple can't block stuff. Only that Verizon can't then block additional stuff afterwards.

    So, like how Apple has Face-Time but AT&T blocks it? That'd be a no-no. But Apple pulling an app for some reason? Not a problem...they're not the liscensee!

    Again...I'm not saying I know what I'm talking about, but it's interesting that your post doesn't contradict mine. So you haven't actually disagreed with me yet. That's a good sign.
     
  8. Tarzanman macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    #8
    The rule isn't there to block phones... the rule is there to enforce a modicum of neutrality.

    Apple has deep pockets. So does Microsoft. Looking at the Microsoft-search-on-Verizon-Android-devices debacle, it is not so far-fetched to think that Apple or Microsoft might throw some cash Verizon's way to only allow certain phones to video chat or stream Netflix movies, etc.

    Google requested the rule to make sure that Verizon cannot subjectively block certain services or functions from a phone for purely licensing/financial reasons. Its a way of making sure that the carriers don't start trying to manipulate handset sales (and screw over phone makers who don't want to give them $weetheart deals) by suddenly banning google voice or google maps on certain phones.
     
  9. ozred macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    #9
    You are absolutely correct :)
     
  10. tigress666 thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    Washington State
    #10
    That makes sense, thank you.
     
  11. Chwisch87 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    #11
    So yes, a LTE iPhone could not be offered.
     
  12. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #12
    True, but would Apple be happy about letting Verizon after sanction apps after they have into their precious device? Me thinks not.
     
  13. kdarling, Feb 27, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2011

    kdarling macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    First university coding class = 46 years ago
    #13
    Bluntly put, it's a ridiculous article based on a really specious interpretation.

    “Specifically, a C Block licensee may not block, degrade, or interfere with the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the licensee’s C Block network, subject to reasonable network management." - FCC

    The ruling only means that the carrier cannot block a user from downloading legal apps designed for their phone that don't screw up the network.

    Even if you added a stretched interpretation that it applies to hardware as well, it would still only mean that they couldn't offer an iPhone that couldn't run all legal iPhone apps.
     
  14. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #14
    And since Apple won't allow it, buh-bye Verizon iPhone... no, it's not a ridiculous article. Just because it states an opinion different from yours doesn't give you the right to call it out in such way. You know what would be a better solution? You not responding to it, at all...
     
  15. kdarling macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    First university coding class = 46 years ago
    #15
    Since Apple won't allow what? As long as Verizon doesn't block the download of any legal apps that don't harm the network, it meets the FCC neutrality rules. How would that stop them selling an LTE iPhone?

    It gives anyone the right when an article is that ridiculously wrong. They're no different than all those tech reporters who wrote an "opinion" that such and such patent gave someone full ownership of multitouch. Wrong is wrong. No opinion needed.

    Fifteen years ago I was the head of a major carrier's lab working on broadband devices that required meeting very similar rules. I gained extensive experience in network neutrality and the FCC.
     
  16. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #16
    Well, when Apple does block them, and Verizon has to authorize them, then there is a problem.

    Say Apple doesn't want an eBook application from Google to go live, by Block C rules, it has to be allowed by Verizon.

    Hence, Apple won't be happy to play in this field.


    Your definition of wrong is different from mine in this respect, and your experience means squat to me as you can well be someone else pretending.
     
  17. kdarling macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    First university coding class = 46 years ago
    #17
    You mean, a Google eBook app that Apple rejected?

    Using that logic, Verizon would have to allow any and all apps, by anyone, that were ever rejected by Apple.

    The ruling says Verizon "may not block, degrade, or interfere (with downloading a legal app)". It does NOT say that Verizon "must force app stores to approve all apps". That's a HUGE difference.

    So if an app is not available from the Apple App Store (which it wouldn't be in that case, since Apple did not approve it), then Verizon is not required to force Apple make it available.

    Likewise, if someone wanted to download an app from Cydia to their jailbroken iPhone, Verizon can't stop it. Not that ATT or any iPhone carrier has ever done so anyway. So Google could put their app there.
     
  18. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #18
    The example was a hypothetical one to begin with. It could well have been a Google application to look up shoes and their prices, etc.

    Taking that into account, Verizon can't block or allow blocking such apps. Yet the application has to be available on the device. In other words, Verizon has to somehow allow it to happen. Apple may say no, and well within their rights. But as soon as that device hits the Block C, it is bounded to allow any application Apple said no to to be a YES.

    Maybe a Verizon store for such applications? I don't know. Point is, Apple won't be happy about someone else allowing such applications on their device. Hence, buh-bye Verizon iPhone.

    Google could put their app in the Cydia store, but come now really. When has a company like Google resorted to the Cydia store?
     

Share This Page