FCC Investigating Apple's Rejection of Google Voice iPhone Application

[akm3]

...........just jailbreak the phone

Apparently even if you do this, the jailbroken version doesn't remember your login information so everytime you open it you have to login to google typing username and password - which I don't know about you but for me that would render it completely useless.

 

[nkawtg72]

??????
Who said anything about forcing anyone to provide anything. The discussion centers around Apple preventing companies that are willing to provide the apps from doing so. That Apple has made themselves the sole gatekeeper of all iPhone apps, they have put themselves into a position that might appear like the FCC forcing them to provide apps. It isn't. It would be the FCC preventing them from obstructing other companies abilty to provide these apps.

"who...?" easy, anyone who has suggested that it's apple's responsibility to provide the platform for competition, mind you on a device that they created.

i don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand. it's an Apple iPhone/iPod. it's an Apple iTunes Store (music, movies, apps, etc). telling them what they have to distribute in their store, or for their devices, is the problem i have. simple as that.

 

[Anuba]

...people cried and cried when the monopolistic activities had a Microsoft label: it was bad, bad, bad. But if has an Apple label on it...it is good, good, good.

Yeah, I... don't quite know what to think of Apple's behavior. Since their market shares are fairly small on all markets (except the iTunes/iPod thing where they're more or less in a Microsoft/Google type situation) you can't accuse them of holding any sort of monopoly, but in the micro-cosm of the Mac universe they go further than Microsoft ever dared (or were allowed) to go in the Windows universe.

They have more bundled stuff (browser, mail, calendar, three media players, DVD creation, photo gallery, music studio, advanced backup agent, instant messaging, web design app) – Microsoft had to lift most of that stuff out of Windows 7. They have the sneaky iPod/iPhone+iTunes lock-in (the world's largest digital download store for music, movies and TV shows only supports Apple's own players). They have the App Store where they're playing mini-Hitler. They have a one-way street OS support – you can come to Mac and still use Windows, but you can't use OS X on a PC. They're acquiring software companies and their products left and right to A) take up the competition with the market leaders in their respective niches, and then B) sell that software at prices that aggressively undercut the competing products. They did this with Logic (bought Emagic, dropped the price to $499 which was a serious blow to Steinberg, Ableton, MOTU and other companies who were used to charging $699 for a DAW. They did it with Final Cut Studio, thus turning their backs on long-time buddy Adobe who responded by pulling Premiere and After Effects for Mac. And then there's iWork, which costs about half of what MS Office costs. With regular Apple pricing, these products would cost more than everything else, but instead they engage in price dumping, get people to buy the software, and get them hooked on it – and then they can't go back to PC because iWork, FC and Logic are Mac-only. And I bet it's only a question of time before Apple stab Google in the back and release their own search engine, maps etc.

If MS did what Apple are doing, on MS's scale, governments around the world wouldn't merely slap them with lawsuits, they would chase MS out of this galaxy in tar and feathers.

 

[JimQPublic]

Some of the comments I've read here (and elsewhere) disturb me somewhat, and I hope this is simply the result of posters not thinking this issue through completely. First of all, the anger directed at Apple seems unwarranted, and especially as an iPhone owner I would think that delivering one of the most successful and well-loved consumer electronics products of recent vintage would have earned them a bit more goodwill than this. As for iPhone owners who are moaning and groaning and playing the victim: no one forced you to buy your phone, and certainly no one is making you keep it.

On the other hand, if this is really as big an offense on Apple and AT&T's part as it is being made to be, then the market should provide a solution to the problem. Consumers will look for a cell phone whose manufacturer places no such restrictions on what type of applications may be used, and a savvy entrepreneur will profit by bringing just such a product to market. In fact, I am quite certain that there are multiple cell phones and cell phone platforms that are much more liberal when it comes to applications already available.

I know that bringing giant corporations to their knees at the altar of an all-powerful government brings a certain satisfaction to some, even if I don't understand why. Just remember this: if the government can take away the freedoms of multi-billion dollar companies, what makes you so sure they won't do the same to you?

 

[cere]

"who...?" easy, anyone who has suggested that it's apple's responsibility to provide the platform for competition, mind you on a device that they created.

Which is ot what you said. You said they would be forced to provide said apps. THAT IS NOT WHAT ANYONE SAID. And you are incapable of seeing the logically flaw in equating providing someone and allowing someone else to provide it, then no amount of discussion will educate you. But to repeat, Apple allowing me to selling something is not the same as Apple selling it. Apple being forced to let me sell something is not the same as forcing Apple to sell something. Not a terribly difficult concept, but perhaps for some it is.


So Who? No one, unless you conpletely are unable to actually read and comprehend what was written. I guess I cold use that same tactic and say you said Apple should determine what any software developer on any platform should be allowed to write and sell. Oh wait, that would be an idiots game since you said no such thing.

They did create the platform, yes. They prevented ANY other way to get apps onto the platform, besides the AppStore. Yes. They invited and encouraged devs to write for this platform, yes again. That is the thing about 'platforms'. Once you open it up for third party development, as Apple has, they put themselves in a position of supporting these devs, even if that only means not actively working against them. Just as Apple and MS work with their devs on their desktop platforms. If Apple or MS tried to determine what apps could run on MacOSX or Windows, they would be nailed quickly. This is the same. That Apple created the AppStore and made it the only way to get apps onto their platform just puts them into more of a position of conflict of interests.

i don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand. it's an Apple iPhone/iPod. it's an Apple iTunes Store (music, movies, apps, etc). telling them what they have to distribute in their store, or for their devices, is the problem i have. simple as that.

They invite all to sell with telling anyone what might not be allowed.

If you owned a marketplace and invited any and all to sell there, you had better have a good reason for arbitrarily denying some. i.e. because they are black isn't a good reason. 'Because their product might complete with a service I also offer in the same market place' is also a poor reason and might get you looked at for various reasons.

 

[czachorski]

OH Please... the APP Store is not a product of Free Market Innovation.. It's basically a carrier app deck that's been redressed and updated.

Carrier App Decks have been around as long as Applications have been available on mobile phones. The fact is instead of AT&T directly controlling it, they just "influence it".

Bottom line is we should be able to go to ANY app store.

What if Microsoft required you buy any and all applications for Windows through their exclusive APP store?

How many people would go for that?

Would everyone please stop with the double standards? I mean, what's fair is fair and Apple is not being fair with the app store (AT&T not withstanding).

AF

The App store **absolutely** is a free market innovation. It was developed by a private company taking risk with their own capital, expecting a return on that investment. It was not developed by a government program or with public dollars.

Bottom line is you should be able to buy any phone you want. You can not expect to get any app you want from within that phone's ecosystem. You can make such a law/rule if you want, but then you should also expect a significant drop in companies willing to take risks to develop and deliver innovative products to you.

If MS developed an app store that required all aps for Windows to pass through their store, with their total control when they control 95% of the OS market, I would imagine that would be a problem and may be considered anti-competitive by governments. If Apple does it with the App store when the iPhone controls 2% of the cell phone market, you do not have an anti-competitive issue. You can try to make that case if you would like, but it seems a very tenuous position to me.

you conveniently forget (or maybe you're just not aware) that the whole business of att (and of apple as a supplier) is not based on "free market" but on a right, granted to att by the government acting on behalf of people, to be the only one allowed to use a set of given radio frequencies.

if the people decide that they don't like the way att operates these radio frequencies att can be penalized or ultimately right given earlier can be taken away.

A right that the government granted to several carriers to create competition. A regulation put in place to allow for a coordinated, non-interfering use of the scarce resource of air waves by private companies in a free market. ATT has not violated these regulations, and I don't think they should be expected to be a conduit to another company's communications. The FCC will certainly investigate this, and I suspect come to a similar conclusion.

Actually, what Apple created for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform is exactly the opposite of a free ecosystem. This isn't a problem for niche markets, like the Macintosh, but it is a problem for larger markets, like Windows - or the iPhone.

The EU now forces Microsoft to let the user choose which web browser they want to use; the European edition of Windows 7 will NOT come with a pre-installed Internet Explorer.

Since the iPhone, the AppStore and the iPod and iTunes are such a huge success, Apple should also no longer be allowed to have that amount of control over that closed and proprietary platform. Just like Microsoft or any other monopolist, they must not be allowed to abuse their power. They should be forced to allow the Google apps or any other application that competes with some built-in functionality. In my opinion, they also should be forced to allow ANY kind of application as long as it is not harmful. And Apple should also be forced to open their protocols so that competing App Stores can be launched. THAT would be a Free Market: It's about embracing the competition, and not about "allowing not to compete or participate".

Of course the App store is not a free market ecosystem - it was created by a private company, with private funds for sale to private customers. Apple is under no legal obligation to create a free market ecosystem.

The free market that *absolutely* does exist is the myriad of choices that exist with various smart phones and carriers for those phones. The presence of this free market will make it very, very difficult to gain any traction with an anti-competitive argument against apple for the App store.

I'm normally very pro free market. The problem with the cell phone market though is it is not free to begin with because the signal spectrum is only so large. If I could go out and start building cell towers today I would agree with you. Problem is that I can't do that. Part of the deal that the cell phone companies agreed too when buying/leasing parts of the spectrum is that they would be governed by the FCC.

You can't do it, because your signal broadcast would interfere with other signals, if everyone did it. It makes total sense for a government to regulate these airwaves to create a smooth environment for business to effectively use this scarce resources to bring products to market and make profit. The existence of such regulations does not require that every ecosystem created must be open to every other company. The ramification of such a requirement would drastically change the cell phone landscape, and probably largely kill-off for-profit-corporate investment in such ecosystems.

 

[nkawtg72]

Which is ot what you said. You said they would be forced to provide said apps. THAT IS NOT WHAT ANYONE SAID. And you are incapable of seeing the logically flaw in equating providing someone and allowing someone else to provide it, then no amount of discussion will educate you. But to repeat, Apple allowing me to selling something is not the same as Apple selling it. Apple being forced to let me sell something is not the same as forcing Apple to sell something. Not a terribly difficult concept, but perhaps for some it is.

beg to differ, to force apple to sell your widget, is the same as telling apple the must provide a means of distribution for someone selling something. they (apple) are nothing more than a distribution source. if i have a widget that id like to sell to shoppers at Sears, because i want to target that particular demographic, and Sears doesnt want to carry it, should they be forced to put it on their shelves?

i acknowledge that no analogy will ever be perfect for this ongoing argument. but in basic principle, a private company should never be forced by a government to do anything (baring illegal acts ie violations of regulations) that it doesnt decide on its own to do. which is why the FCC is looking into this matter, but like i've pointed out before, that doesn't mean they are guilty, yet.

So Who? No one, unless you conpletely are unable to actually read and comprehend what was written. I guess I cold use that same tactic and say you said Apple should determine what any software developer on any platform should be allowed to write and sell. Oh wait, that would be an idiots game since you said no such thing.

not following your argument there. guess i can't comprehend you.

They did create the platform, yes. They prevented ANY other way to get apps onto the platform, besides the AppStore. Yes. They invited and encouraged devs to write for this platform, yes again. That is the thing about 'platforms'. Once you open it up for third party development, as Apple has, they put themselves in a position of supporting these devs, even if that only means not actively working against them. Just as Apple and MS work with their devs on their desktop platforms. If Apple or MS tried to determine what apps could run on MacOSX or Windows, they would be nailed quickly. This is the same. That Apple created the AppStore and made it the only way to get apps onto their platform just puts them into more of a position of conflict of interests.

hate to break it to you, but that is what they do, and they are permitted to. the fact that i can't buy a Mac compatible piece of software and run it on Windows (or vice versa) means they are designing their OSes to not be friendly to software written for other OSes. explain to me why Mac OS has always been able to read PC formatted disks natively, but Windows never supported Mac formatting natively. add to that, that Mac OS can't write to NTFS natively. seems to me they are both preventing the consumer a choice

They invite all to sell with telling anyone what might not be allowed.

If you owned a marketplace and invited any and all to sell there, you had better have a good reason for arbitrarily denying some. i.e. because they are black isn't a good reason. 'Because their product might complete with a service I also offer in the same market place' is also a poor reason and might get you looked at for various reasons.

wrong. apple did not invite everyone to the play. the adult entertainment industry would jump at the chance to dev on iphone. apple has flatly turned them away since the beginning. how do you respond to that? would you say that it's okay for apple to turn devs away on a strictly moral basis, but not in the best interests of the company's competitive advantage?

 

[Ibjr]

Looks like Schmidt called in a favor.

I believe he's really good friends with the President.

I can't stand uninformed cynics.

 

[CQd44]

hate to break it to you, but that is what they do, and they are permitted to. the fact that i can't buy a Mac compatible piece of software and run it on Windows (or vice versa) means they are designing their OSes to not be friendly to software written for other OSes.

That's not the OS's fault, it's the software's and whoever wrote it. Look at Adobe, they release Mac and Windows versions of their programs. It's a matter of compatibility, not "not [being] friendly."
What next, you're going to complain that you can't run flash programs in a java environment?

 

[Ibjr]

Y...that someone besides me feels that Google is the Evil Empire, not Microsoft. Google is great and scary at the same time.

As long as Google continues to stick to open standards and allow interoperability I don't see a problem with their growing dominance. If MS wants to create a free version of office that runs on the web, and through any browser, the consumer can just as easily run office through a Chrome OS as windows.

It isn't google's fault that companies like Apple and MS profit from a product (computer OSes) that are going the way of free.

 

[nkawtg72]

those arguing that if MS was requiring everyone to sell apps and such through a proprietary app store, that everyone would call foul, should remember one thing.

devs for the apple iphone, received, acknowledged, and accepted terms of service, and in return were provided a proprietary software (iPhone SDK) to give them the ability to develop for the device.

you could just as easily be complaining that the only way to dev for the iPhone is within apples subscription based SDK service. why cant i buy a dev package from a third party.

this is why i think, the investigation will at least absolve apple. the FCC will be forced to recognize that these devs, by choice, entered into a contractually binding agreement with apple.

and at least in the US, the government for now is still respecting the contracts between two private parties, as long as the contracts do not condone, encourage, or sustain any illegal activity. the software in question is written for the iPhone/ipod, apple has simply taken the stance that they reserve the right to say what can and cant go on the device in the name of security, stability, corporate self interest, and morals (reject of outright porn for example).

i hate to tell you, but you cant argue that apple chose to allow apps, so they brought this on themselves, so that have to allow everyone now. it just doesnt work that way (disclaimer: in the US. other countries may decide different).

 

[j-traxx]

I know that bringing giant corporations to their knees at the altar of an all-powerful government brings a certain satisfaction to some, even if I don't understand why. Just remember this: if the government can take away the freedoms of multi-billion dollar companies, what makes you so sure they won't do the same to you?

well said. the general consensus of this thread is overly "stickin it to the man"-ish. .

 

[Ibjr]

Nkawtg72,

You cannot contract around violations of the Sherman antitrust act or other consumer protections. If you could, then they would have no teeth. Contract law is a lot more complicated than you seem to believe.

 

[Eso]

Ok. Now I see part of the picture..Thanks for that info.

In the future you might try being a bit less condescending though.

So then what happens if a person that has a data plan with sms on the AT&T network decides to drop the data and sms plan from their iPhone ?
Is the person relegated to WiFi only ? Or can the person still use AT&T's cell towers.

What do you think happens when you don't have a data plan and try to use data over the cell network?

Why are the most incompetent people on this site always "Mac Rumors Demi-Gods". How much did you have to 'donate' for that title?

 

[Ibjr]

well said. the general consensus of this thread is overly "stickin it to the man"-ish. .

AT&T is operating over a public good (the spectrum) so that is why the FCC has authority in this case. Please know of what you speak.

 

[nkawtg72]

That's not the OS's fault, it's the software's and whoever wrote it. Look at Adobe, they release Mac and Windows versions of their programs. It's a matter of compatibility, not "not [being] friendly."
What next, you're going to complain that you can't run flash programs in a java environment?

once again, the point goes ignored. no i don't want flash in java. no i dont think mac apps should run on PCs or PC apps on Mac. and no i dont think it's anyones business to tell any of the above that they should have to.

this same idea can be applied, if all you look at is that a private entity should not be forced to engage in an activity contrary to its own self interest.

the problem here is that people are still mixing the apple discussion and the att discussion into one concept. they are inherently separate, as att is nothing but a vendor with access to apples product. att should not be telling apple what they can and cant do with their devices in attempt to limit competition.

that said, apple is still in control of it's own intellectual property and under the circumstances can, and does, determine what it thinks should or shouldn't be allowed on the devices. it's at this point you are no longer talking about competition but instead consumer satisfaction. and in that case, if you don't like the control apple exhibits over its products you are still free to not buy them, and buy from the competition.

 

[Ibjr]

Why are the most incompetent people on this site always "Mac Rumors Demi-Gods". How much did you have to 'donate' for that title?

Because Demi-Gods are chosen for their activity here and personality. Normal, informed, people cannot spend more than a few minutes here at a time and remain civil--there are far too many posters that speak authoritatively on topics of which they have only supposition and feeling.

If you look at some of my previous posts (i've been here for a long time) you'll see that many of the posters in the threads have been banned for being uncivil to these "demi-gods."

 

[Ibjr]

The FCC has to approve the iphone. The iphone runs on AT&T's spectrum. AT&T gets the spectrum, a public good, from the FCC. They aren't as separate as you believe.

 

[dukebound85]

Because Demi-Gods are chosen for their activity here and personality. Normal, informed, people cannot spend more than a few minutes here at a time and remain civil--there are far too many posters that speak authoritatively on topics of which they have only supposition and feeling.

If you look at some of my previous posts (i've been here for a long time) you'll see that many of the posters in the threads have been banned for being uncivil to these "demi-gods."

lol no

anyone can become a demi by donating 25 bucks a year

there is no selection process at all. a person that just joined with 0 posts can be a demi

people dont get banned for insulting demis, they get banned for insulting anyone...

 

[nkawtg72]

Nkawtg72,

You cannot contract around violations of the Sherman antitrust act or other consumer protections. If you could, then they would have no teeth. Contract law is a lot more complicated than you seem to believe.

read my post again you. i said that very thing. as long as the contract does not violate law, then it is binding.

again, instead of just saying that they (apple and att) are violating anti-trust laws, why don't you cite which section of this law they are violating and what they are specifically doing to violate it. saying it doesnt make it so.

being competitive, having competitive advantage, singularly controlling a device (the iPhone is not a market, don't pretend it is) is not having a monopoly or mean you're violating anti-trust laws.

 

[str1f3]

Yeah, once Google have their netbook OS out, along with utter and complete dominance in the search engine department on both Mac and PC, plus Android, plus Chrome, plus Maps, Mail, photo gallery... they'll have grown into quite the scary giant in relatively little time. Yet they don't seem to have a core idea. They just do stuff. I can't shake the feeling that they're about to implode suddenly one day.

Their core is built on search. The core idea is the same as any company: to get you to use their products. The difference is with Google is that they are one of the very few in tech to build a monopoly around open source. The main issue with Google is and always be privacy. Give another 20 yrs. and kids will be asking what is a Microsoft.

 

[Ibjr]

read my post again you. i said that very thing. as long as the contract does not violate law, then it is binding.

again, instead of just saying that they (apple and att) are violating anti-trust laws, why don't you cite which section of this law they are violating and what they are specifically doing to violate it. saying it doesnt make it so.

being competitive, having competitive advantage, singularly controlling a device (the iPhone is not a market, don't pretend it is) is not having a monopoly or mean you're violating anti-trust laws.

I hope to god you aren't a lawyer. You have no clue what you are talking about. A contract can be invalid for reasons besides illegality and illegality is much wider than you defined. Furthermore, a contract can, but is rarely, defined as illegal on public policy grounds. If you had even been a first year law student you would have read some case named with Walker Thomas Furniture Company.

Second, the single controlling device can violate antirust laws. Have you even taken a law class in your life?

 

[nkawtg72]

I hope to god you aren't a lawyer. You have no clue what you are talking about. A contract can be invalid for reasons besides illegality and illegality is much wider than you defined. Furthermore, a contract can, but is rarely, defined as illegal on public policy grounds. If you had even been a first year law student you would have read some case named with Walker Thomas Furniture Company.

Second, the single controlling device can violate antirust laws. Have you even taken a law class in your life?

since you do seem to know so much then answer my question. specifically, which of the anti-trust laws is apple violating by not allowing certain apps.

and now you mention public policy and the Walker Thomas Furniture Co ---- can you say Epic Fail

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (C.A. D.C. 1965), was a court opinion, written by J. Skelly Wright, that had a definitive discussion of unconscionability as a defense to enforcement of contracts. As a staple of first-year law school contract law courses, it has been briefed extensively.


fyi, this was pulled straight from the judgment:


...we hold that where the element of unconscionability is present at the time a contract is made, the contract should not be enforced.
... Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. ... In many cases the meaningfulness of the choice is negated by a gross inequality of bargaining power. ... The manner in which the contract was entered is also relevant to this consideration. Did each party to the contract, considering his obvious education or lack of it, have a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract, or were the important terms hidden in a maze of fine print and minimized by deceptive sales practices? Ordinarily, one who signs an agreement without full knowledge of its terms might be held to assume the risk that he has entered a one-sided bargain. But when a party of little bargaining power, and hence little real choice, signs a commercially unreasonable contract with little or no knowledge of its terms, it is hardly likely that his consent, or even an objective manifestation of his consent, was ever given to all the terms. In such a case the usual rule that the terms of the agreement are not to be questioned should be abandoned and the court should consider whether the terms of the contract are so unfair that enforcement should be withheld.

---------------


your example is with regards to enforcement of a contract when it is concluded that one of the parties did not fully understand the terms of the contract (example reasons above). apple clearly defined the terms, and everyone has known that apple has said since the beginning there will be an approval process for apps and cited reasons for rejection. one of them was duplication of features

 

[nkawtg72]

I hope to god you aren't a lawyer.

not that it matters, but no i'm not and also glad im not. i couldnt live with myself compromising my ethics and morals in defense or representation of someone else. (disclaimer: not saying all lawyers do, just that i couldnt)

also no offense to any lawyers on here, but i hate to tell you, many lawyers are groomed strictly for the purpose of finding loopholes and sidestepping the laws that you hold so dear.

so don't think for once that just because i didnt go to law school that im uneducated or uninformed.

 

[Ibjr]

since you do seem to know so much then answer my question. specifically, which of the anti-trust laws is apple violating by not allowing certain apps.

Irrelevant. I don't know the legal theory that the US Gov or the FCC is operating under but I am not being retained or paid to do that. My guess is it is solid.

and now you mention public policy and the Walker Thomas Furniture Co ---- can you say Epic Fail

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (C.A. D.C. 1965), was a court opinion, written by J. Skelly Wright, that had a definitive discussion of unconscionability as a defense to enforcement of contracts. As a staple of first-year law school contract law courses, it has been briefed extensively.

The unconscionability doctrine grew out of public policy concerns of unequal bargaining power. Did I say public policy? I think I did. While the opinion doesn't mention public policy by name, anyone with even basic legal training could see that it is the basis for Wright's decision. I only mentioned Walker to show your broad statements about K law show you don't understand it.

your example is with regards to enforcement of a contract when it is concluded that one of the parties did not fully understand the terms of the contract (example reasons above). apple clearly defined the terms, and everyone has known that apple has said since the beginning there will be an approval process for apps and cited reasons for rejection. one of them was duplication of features

You misread the case. Furthermore, it could be argued that the Schiller's involvement in the approval of GV Voice, could be seen as apple implicitly waving that entire term of the contract (doubtful) or in the specific case of GV Voice functions (more likely).