While your lack of legal training doesn't mean you are uninformed, your statements in this thread and comments about the legal profession do mean you are uninformed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FCC Investigating Apple's Rejection of Google Voice iPhone Application
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While your lack of legal training doesn't mean you are uninformed, your statements in this thread and comments about the legal profession do mean you are uninformed.
They have set themselves up as the only source for distribution. So, I cannot selling it unless the let me. I am not asking them to sell it, close the damn store, but let me sell it. Really?
And again, basic grade 2 reading comprehension. This is not what you previously claimed. You said Apple was being (or might be) forced to provide apps against their will, with the example of a software vendor being forced to sell Mac and Windows versions of all their software. Which of course if not at all what is being discussed here.
Again, asking Apple to allow other companies to selling their product is NOT the same as asking for forcing them to create and provide that software.
How about forcing them not to interfere with the commerce of other businesses?
no kidding
wow. The number of logical and factual errors in this paragraph are beyond counting. I will have to edit this reply later to see if I can explain your many errors. No time now (two screaming infants).
I will say that as a professional software developer, whether I write my apps for Mac or Windows has NOTHING to do with either intentionally writing their OSes not to be software friendly. This one paragraph explains, I think, why it so hard to explain things to you.
'hate to break it to me'....classic
Mostly true. But the porno guys are told up front not to waste their time. The rest are now expected to play russian roulette and hope their app will be approved.
You obviously are not a programmer or dev, so I don't expect you to understand basics and fundamental aspects of that business. But you are going way beyond not knowing. I have never know anyone so lost about so many things.
I can't argue with you that the FCC doesn't have the right to regulate telecoms in this manner, even if I don't like it. But this doesn't change the fact that I don't believe Apple or AT&T did anything wrong. If Google wants to provide voice-related services over a cellular data network, that's fine. But AT&T has the right to use part of the wireless spectrum for their network, and furthermore has the right to determine how their network, which they have invested billions of dollars into, may be used. Last I checked, Google has no such rights. The proper course for Google would be to work out with AT&T, or some other wireless provider, a deal that would allow them to provide their services over the carrier's network. Clearly they did not do so in this case. As an outside observer, this looks to me as though Google was trying to profit off someone else's (AT&T's) substantial investment. Even if this is not the case, I don't think it was unreasonable for AT&T to react in the manner they did.
Please read what Google voice is before you keep posting in this thread. TYIA.
I think the FCC is concerned with AT&T here, not Apple. Normally I'm against government interference in these types of matters, however when it comes to services that are available due to resources granted by the government and the country, I think it's different.
The resource in this case is the spectrum that AT&T is licensed. It is a very finite resource. That is why public utilities are regulated as well (they didn't want 1000 wires coming into your house). Given that situation, I think the FCC has a right to investigate whether AT&T is using its government-granted resources to block innovation/progress. With government resources (and therefore *our* resources) such as this, I feel that the companies that use them have not only an obligation to their shareholders, but to the public at large. If they're not serving the public good, then the resources we've granted them should be diverted elsewhere.
The resource in this case is the spectrum that AT&T is licensed. It is a very finite resource. That is why public utilities are regulated as well (they didn't want 1000 wires coming into your house). Given that situation, I think the FCC has a right to investigate whether AT&T is using its government-granted resources to block innovation/progress. With government resources (and therefore *our* resources) such as this, I feel that the companies that use them have not only an obligation to their shareholders, but to the public at large. If they're not serving the public good, then the resources we've granted them should be diverted elsewhere.
I agree with everything you wrote except for this. Public utility are regulated (usually at cost plus) because in roughly 75% of states, the investment required to start a power gen unit (licensing, enviro permits, ect) is so large that it is cost prohibitive to start a competing producer. It has nothing to do with 1000 wires -- in many states telephone companies have been deregulated and don't experience a "100 wire" problem.
I am not confused about what Google Voice is or what services it provides. I just happen to think that it is irrelevant when the issue at stake is whether Apple and AT&T should have the right to decide how the cell phone platform and wireless data network which they own/have exclusive rights to, respectively, should be used.
Their business is based on a public good (spectrum) so there are limits to these "exclusive rights."
The issue isn't whether or not Apple can approve apps for its own store. Apple does control the store and the iPhone. The issue here is how much influence AT&T exerted in getting GV rejected. That will go to the heart of showing the decision was made in an anti-competitive nature.
I'm paying AT&T $30/month for a data plan. Nothing in the terms of service indicated that AT&T could decide which applications or programs would be allowed to utilize that data. AT&T has the power to limit the amount of data I transmit over its network, but it shouldn't have the power to tell me what I can or can't use it for unless such activity would be illegal.
If AT&T is enticing another independent company to reject applications because it might hurt AT&T, it would indicate AT&T is engaging in behavior designed to stifle competition. That is what the FCC is going to be looking at.
Is AT&T trying to unfairly ban an application because a) it might hurt AT&T's revenue stream, or b) its use might tax AT&T's network and expose the fact that it doesn't have the capacity to service the millions of "unlimited" data plans it sells? Either way, it isn't AT&T's place to tell Apple what apps utilize the data.
I'm paying AT&T $30/month for a data plan. Nothing in the terms of service indicated that AT&T could decide which applications or programs would be allowed to utilize that data. AT&T has the power to limit the amount of data I transmit over its network, but it shouldn't have the power to tell me what I can or can't use it for unless such activity would be illegal.
If AT&T is enticing another independent company to reject applications because it might hurt AT&T, it would indicate AT&T is engaging in behavior designed to stifle competition. That is what the FCC is going to be looking at.
Is AT&T trying to unfairly ban an application because a) it might hurt AT&T's revenue stream, or b) its use might tax AT&T's network and expose the fact that it doesn't have the capacity to service the millions of "unlimited" data plans it sells? Either way, it isn't AT&T's place to tell Apple what apps utilize the data.
I saw someone mention collusion and thats what this is all about. The FCC knows exactly what AT&T and Apple are trying to do.
I hope that Apple gets hit hard. They have the nerve to take the developer's app off the store for no apparent reason and then charge them for any refunds. It is absolutely disgusting.
I hope nobody asks for refunds. You are hurting the developers twice as much. Screw you Apple.
I hope nobody asks for refunds. You are hurting the developers twice as much. Screw you Apple.
It's funny because Google Voice is still plenty accessible to all phones regardless of the associated apps. Apple/AT&T cannot restrict the access in the manner you describe. All that they have done is prevent the convenience of accessing the service. How does removing the apps prevent a user from using Google Voice?
I may be wrong about this, and legally speaking, I probably am, but I just don't see why AT&T should be required to allow for competition on what is essentially their own dime. It just seems unethical to me. If someone 15 or 20 years ago had told the telecoms that one day 3rd parties would be allowed to provide services similar to their own, but on the same infrastructure that they had spent their blood, sweat and tears to create, does anyone believe that they would have even bothered?
I do think you make some interesting points, and I agree with you that competition can be a good thing. But generally, it seems like the government is better at stifling innovation and competition than it is promoting it.
I guess it doesn't, though to be fair, I never said it did. 78Bandit is right when he says that Apple's control over the AppStore is not at issue, while AT&T's control over their part of the spectrum is. I just happen to think that AT&T should have the same say on what goes on with their data network as Apple does with its App Store. I'm in the minority with that opinion.
And they do, but as you're convinced that banning any threat to your bussiness is not preventing competition I will finish here.
Best regards
i can't believe the number of ignorant people on this forum, as well as others. every time a headline like this comes out, lately it has turned into a discussion of free markets, monopolies, anti-trust, unfair business practices, blah blah blah blah blah.
oh and don't forget the every popular, disjointed analogies to try and prove ones opinion being more right than someone else's (i'm guilty of that one too).
i'll attempt on this occasion to refrain from an analogy and instead ask two "what if" questions.
WHAT IF Apple had never designed and built an iPhone? or here's another: WHAT IF Apple had never developed the iPhone OS to support the purchasing and installation of applications?
would ANY government or entity have had the "right" or power to step in and tell Apple they had to make a phone, or had to allow apps on the phone?
would Apple have been accused of all these same improprieties because they weren't providing a platform or marketplace for competitors to distribute their own intellectual property? i think not.
i will concede that a Google Voice app should be allowed to be installed on an iPhone an run as long as it's using WiFi and not AT&Ts data networks. so i am curious as to how this investigation will turn out with regards to that.
not that Apple would ever do this, but one last WHAT IF. WHAT IF Apple were to get tired of all the bs, and complaints, and investigations, and decide to get out of the market and stop producing iPhones, and shut down the App store, and quite providing software updates for existing devices? where would all be then?
we'd be in the same place we've been the whole time (before and after they made the iPhone). we'd be in a market were any entity is FREE to make their own device that does wonderful things to make the lives of consumers better in their never ending quest to buy more stuff.
personally i dont think Apple cares if there is a Google Voice app. i think itll be shown that it was a result of ATT input, pressure, etc. apple will eventually have to allow the app.
in a case like that, i go back to what i said before about WiFi only access for such apps, but the iPhone is NOT ATT's intellectual property and therefore should not be able to dictate who gets to use it and not use it. their data network however is their property, and they should be allowed to dictate what can and cannot be done on it.
take that one step further, the iPhone is Apple's intellectual property and they should be allowed to decide when and where it gets distributed. ie exclusivity contracts. maybe they are the greatest things in the world for everyone, and maybe Apple doesn't like the idea of them a whole lot either. but if they didn't think they were necessary for the purpose of meeting certain corporate goals, then they wouldnt be entering into them.
it's a shame i said i wouldnt use analogies in my post today, because i had a great one about toilets and me being able to force you to have a Kohler toilet installed next to every American Standard toilet in each of the bathrooms in your home when i visit, because i have the right to choose where i want to do my business
I am going to attempt to make this very simple "analogy" for you... since you seem to completely miss the point of anything discussed here:
A police officer is afforded the authority to engage in a number of activities for the purpose of upholding the law, protecting the public etc. How-ever if they begin to "abuse" any of these authorities they are held accountable by other entities, government administrations and such. It's called a "check" and "Balance".
If our country (meaning the US) as imperfect as it may be, did not have checks and balances, we would still be beholden to totalitarianism and dictatorships (such as the old royal rule of law). Thus, as much as you may like to argue the government should "stay out of your business" ultimately this is the lesser of two very possible evils.
AF
Leave it to the government to stick there nose into the business of people trying to give a reason to use their service.
Your argument falls flat due to the fact we aren't concerned with what apple isn't doing as much as what they "are doing".
The fact is, the app store already exists and developers have already made these rejected applications specifically for the iphone.
So long as they do not break any current functionality or cause damage to the network then it costs nothing for Apple and AT&T to let these apps onto the app store.
IF they should lose any revenue to do a better alternative solution being out there, even if it is provided on their own app store by a third party developer, then they should be working to improve their services and innovate their products.
Those of you who argue against opening up the playing field are essentially arguing against innovation and I simply cannot understand why you would do that.
AF
hmmm
Looks like this battle is about to go down... Maybe it's just me but google is starting to get a little annoying. What google is gonna cry about??? I can personally careless, I'm not losing any sleep over this issue and i doubt this will even effect google... Besides don't they have Android phones to add it too?
Why is the government stepping in? They should be busy doing other, more important things then this... I'm just saying
Looks like this battle is about to go down... Maybe it's just me but google is starting to get a little annoying. What google is gonna cry about??? I can personally careless, I'm not losing any sleep over this issue and i doubt this will even effect google... Besides don't they have Android phones to add it too?
Why is the government stepping in? They should be busy doing other, more important things then this... I'm just saying
This is not about personal satisfaction... its really much simpler if you consider these factors..
The contracts! If we were free to roam from one carrier to the next without incurring penalties then that would be a slightly different issue... Keep in mind that we should also be able to get a new device at a reasonable cost.
For example... if I decide one day I want to run Linux on my PC, Dell, Sony HP etc. aren't going to come after me and say "No No no, you cant do that. We made that PC and you must run windows, cause if you don't run windows on it then you might not use one of our subscription services or our partner services and thus we lose money... so no, you can't do that at all"
Also, when I buy a PC I am not committed to using only one Internet service provider for 2 years... For example... if I move to an area that Comcast services, but I am locked into a contract with TIme Warner.... should I be obligated to pay a 200 plus dollar termination fee just so I can move to a new area?
THis is not a fair solution to the consumer at all... The consumer commits to these agreements in good faith with the service provider under the conditions that the service provider is doing everything it can to continually improve its services and innovate its products while allowing the consumer flexibility to use the service to meet their individual needs...
Unfortunately the case as it stands today is once you are locked into a contract most carriers could give a damn what you think... they have your money, and they have you hostage for 2 freaking years ... 2 years they can use to sit on their asses with their technology and services running stagnant.
Everyone asks... why do people say that in Europe or the rest of the world wireless services are more advanced than in the US? Because of CONTRACTS... I guarantee you if we got rid of the contracts the carriers would be on their toes innovating and staying competitive and the consumer would get their rights back.
AF
No one is arguing against innovation, but some of us disagree that "opening up the playing field" would be a necessarily positive thing. While forcing AT&T to allow the use of its network for purposes it was not originally intended might spur on development of iPhone apps, it is unjust to AT&T and might set a bad precedent.
If it's ok to treat AT&T in this manner, then what's to stop us from treating other entrepreneurs and innovators the same way. What if the inventors of and investors in the next great method of communication or transportation were afraid to bring their product to market because the government would accuse them of being a monopoly, and force them to share their technology or infrastructure to their competitors while still bearing the financial burden? Injustice done to multi-billion dollar companies is still injustice. And while no one may cry a tear for them, the real losers are all of us.
For this reason and others, I prefer to err on the side of market forces, not the government, and I would hope that all rational people who believe in freedom and personal responsibility do as well.
So, for example, MS shouldn't be forced to allow any non-MS web browsers or word processors to run on Windows because it would be 'unethical' for Firefox to piggyback on the hard work and success of Windows?
Greed is much better at stifling innovation and competition than the US government will ever be, IMO. After the Telecommunications Act of '96, which deregulated the media industry on a huge scale, did we get a wave of innovation and competition? No. The big media companies became even bigger media conglomerates by merging w/each other and swallowing up smaller media outlets. Now there are about six conglomerates that pretty much own all the media outlets as well as many of the most popular sites on the internet. Why build a better mouse trap when you can just buy up leading mouse trap makers and run the rest out of business?
Lethal
But who paid/pays for AT&T's infrastructure? You and I. You make it sound like the consumer had nothing to do with it. In fact, I pay my blood, sweat, and tears for a very tiny piece of that infrastructure every month. Without us and the government's policies, AT&T's infrastructure wouldn't exist. And regardless of using GV or not, AT&T is sill kindly going to pocket your monthly bill.
And besides, there are multiple features/programs that are not allowed on the iPhone, but are allowed on other AT&T cellphones. It just isn't fair. MS and RIM are probably sitting back and laughing at this situation.
I hope they investigate Ford next! I want my Ford to have a Chevy Engine....those jerks at Ford are forcing us to buy their cars with their own engines!
If you want to come up with a witty analogy, first step would be to make sure your analogy actually makes sense.
No, AT&T are getting annoying. They're like a tiny pebble in your shoe. How about that analogy?