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
Of course Microsoft should be allowed to decide which software does and does not run on their operating system. It's their operating system. A conscientious consumer, meanwhile, is free to not use Microsoft's products if this offends them. You know, they might even think about using an alternative operating system. I remember hearing about one somewhere...
I don't pretend to be an expert, but can it be a coincidence that this was around the same time the World Wide Web was really gaining popularity? Your problem can't really be that there is a limited range of options when it comes to media, because this is the exact opposite of reality. In fact, between terrestrial and satellite radio, cable television, portable electronics, and the web there are more forms of media, and more ways to view them, than ever before. Your problem seems to be with big corporations, and to be fair, you don't really hide this. You won't believe me when I tell you this, but there is actually nothing inherently wrong with a few big companies owning the media. As I've just proved to you, it doesn't stifle innovation and has in fact resulted in more choices for the consumer. This is getting a bit more philosophical than I wanted, but I feel like if I could convince you that your dislike for big corporations is irrational, I would have accomplished something today. Would it help if I told you that corporations were not that different from the rest of us: self-interested entities trying to procure to greatest benefit for themselves? I would agree with you if you had simply stated that we shouldn't trust big companies necessarily, or that we shouldn't let them take away our freedoms. But I think you are wrong if you believe the reverse is acceptable.
Your statement "You won't believe me when I tell you this, but there is actually nothing inherently wrong with a few big companies owning the media." is complete rubbish.
There are numerous examples of how this has only stifled innovation. First and foremost just take a look at television programming today. The networks simply rebrand and regurgitate the same ideas over and over and over again. Even hollywood has fallen prey to this network mentality of regurgitation... while it may seem obvious just look at all of the remakes that are constantly being produced... Do you honestly think this is because someone simply wants to do it better or because of studio greed and rights holding?
Back to the point on innovation in technology... There are some very ethereal elements to software when it relates to intellectual property... In order to understand how actions such as those taken by Apple and AT&T can be seem as anti competitive you must look at this from a much broader perspective... simply analyzing on a case by case basis it seems no harm is being done... but the fact is the trend is what is worrisome.
When we are talking about what can and cannot be installed on a hardware platform or operating system the context needs to be considered as does the intended application of the hardware platform... this all of course being sourced from the original intent of the manufacturer and developer.
Take into consideration this fact... Apple is NOT paying these developers a single cent to make applications for their platform (which in turn will only help to further popularize that platform) how-ever they control far too many aspects of the developers creative processes for not paying or supposedly owning the rights to that software...
You can argue it's "their store" etc. etc. But Apple has made one critical error in their methodology.. it is NOT disclosing the exact criteria in which an application is reviewed and approved and is is NOT enforcing approval processes consistently or fairly...
Again it's irrelevant if it's their store or not... they cannot entice and even endorse development houses into spending valuable time and money developing applications for distribution through their store if they cannot provide a consistent and transparent means for review and approval.
What surprises me more than anything, is that none of these developers are taking Apple to court... there are so many viable cases for civil suit against Apple for their unfair and inconsistent application of undisclosed policy that is costing businesses tens of thousands of dollars...
This is not a joke... seriously people. wether Google is good or bad.. they are just another case of the same grief that so many other developers are facing with regards to app store submissions.
This is the main point... forget all the other politics... I can assure you, if Google has anything to gain from all of this... its just to lure more developers to their open platform with bad press against Apple and their closed system.
DO NOT forget... this is what put Apple in the silo it's been in while Microsoft has swept up market share for so long... Now that Apple has a very very compelling product, let's hope they do not shoot themselves in the foot by driving consumers who demand more freedom to other solutions.
AF
Did you miss the whole MS on trial thing in the US and Europe for being an illegal monopoly a few years ago?
It's not a coincidence that after restrictions on media ownership were lifted that buyouts and mergers started happening and, among other things, basically turned locally owned media into a thing of the past.
One million voices singing the same songs doesn't constitute variety. Like I said, the majority of newspapers, magazines, TV stations, TV networks/channels, book publishers, radio stations, popular websites, etc., are all owned by a half dozen conglomerates.
Wow. Such insight. It's like you've known me from birth. If had a 'problem' w/big corporations I wouldn't have a home full of products made by them, I wouldn't get my news & entertainment from movies, books, TV channels, magazines, web sites, newspapers, video games, etc., that they own and I certainly wouldn't work for one of the largest conglomerates on Earth.
If you don't think there's anything wrong w/a handful of people controlling the vast majority of what you see, hear and read there's probably nothing I can say to change your mind.
The only thing you proved is what you admitted to at the beginning of your post which is that you aren't an expert. I'd dare go a step further and say that you aren't even well informed.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose and the same limitation is true for corporations. The only thing I'm 'anti' is too much power in the hands of too few w/o any checks and balances. On a broader note, people seem to forget that the 'airwaves' are a seen as a limited resource in the US that belong to the people and are regulated by the federal government on behalf of the people.
Lethal
Riddle me this...
I don't believe this has been discussed, and sorry if it has...
Does anyone know the consequence (if any) against Apple for pulling apps off the store that people have already have spent money on? I am nearly certain (Not 100%) that nowhere in the app store consumer agreement does it state that you may be spending money on applications that could be gone tomorrow.
In other words, the way I see it is that nothing in this store is a guarantee; and nowhere have I read of anyone getting refunds from Apple for their business practices for pulling applications off that have already sold legally and under their own terms of service.
Thoughts?
Edit: addition...
Just found this on Giz... what timing.
QUOTE:
Now this is ridiculous. Not only did Apple pull all the unofficial Google Voice apps out of the App Store for an absurd reason, now they expect the developers of those apps to fund refunds out of their own pockets.
One of the developers, as you remember, found out that their app had been pulled only when a user emailed them to ask the app wasn't available for purchase. Then, they asked Apple why it was pulled, and was met with what could only be called as an absurd phone exchange. See here for the transcript.
Now, according to an interview given to Maclife, they're being forced to pay for Apple's actions.
"Apple made it impossible for our customers to receive the fixes, updates, and support by pulling the app. We were fulfilling our end of the bargain. Why should those refunds come out of our pocket?" says Duerr. "The refund issue and lack of respect for our mutual customers has further soured us on the belief that Apple cares at all about their developers … other than the dollars they bring in."
I hope the FCC investigation gets somebody's ass smacked down. [MacLife] END QUOTE
Link:
http://gizmodo.com/5327889/apple-expects-google-voice-app-developers-to-pay-refunds-out-of-pocket
I don't believe this has been discussed, and sorry if it has...
Does anyone know the consequence (if any) against Apple for pulling apps off the store that people have already have spent money on? I am nearly certain (Not 100%) that nowhere in the app store consumer agreement does it state that you may be spending money on applications that could be gone tomorrow.
In other words, the way I see it is that nothing in this store is a guarantee; and nowhere have I read of anyone getting refunds from Apple for their business practices for pulling applications off that have already sold legally and under their own terms of service.
Thoughts?
Edit: addition...
Just found this on Giz... what timing.
QUOTE:
Now this is ridiculous. Not only did Apple pull all the unofficial Google Voice apps out of the App Store for an absurd reason, now they expect the developers of those apps to fund refunds out of their own pockets.
One of the developers, as you remember, found out that their app had been pulled only when a user emailed them to ask the app wasn't available for purchase. Then, they asked Apple why it was pulled, and was met with what could only be called as an absurd phone exchange. See here for the transcript.
Now, according to an interview given to Maclife, they're being forced to pay for Apple's actions.
"Apple made it impossible for our customers to receive the fixes, updates, and support by pulling the app. We were fulfilling our end of the bargain. Why should those refunds come out of our pocket?" says Duerr. "The refund issue and lack of respect for our mutual customers has further soured us on the belief that Apple cares at all about their developers … other than the dollars they bring in."
I hope the FCC investigation gets somebody's ass smacked down. [MacLife] END QUOTE
Link:
http://gizmodo.com/5327889/apple-expects-google-voice-app-developers-to-pay-refunds-out-of-pocket
Ummm..no, they shouldn't. Not even MS is stupid enough to think they should be allowed that right over their consumers. That would give them control over what consumers are and are not allowed to do with their legally purchased computers. They have no such right. They cannot decide what webpages you visit, what financial software you use nor what photo software you run. If they had the right to determine what software could run on Windows, they would have in effect the right to determine what you use and do on your computer. You have a very inflated idea of what the companies that produce your products are able to impose on you.
When you buy pants, do you ask Levi's what day of the week you can wear them? When you buy condoms, should you ask with whom you are allowed to use them? Do you ask Sony what brand of DVD player you can use with you TV? Do you ask Panasonic what titles you can watch on your Bluray player? I mean, it's their player, right? They created these products you use, right? So, they should decide how you can use them, right?
MS was convicted of antitrust violations for abusing their monopoly position. And they were not so bold to try to decide what software could run on their OS.
Years ago, Bill Gates obtained a market strangle-hold on the desktop OS, and used that effective monopoly to make Microsoft become a monster.
In the next business cycle, Apple has developed a strangle-hold on another OS called OSX/iPhone, and is starting to use that effective monopoly to make Apple become ....
You can see it already in the way Apple do things, simply because they want to, without any consideration for customers. Apple is making tons of money so they don't care if they lose a few customers here and there. I see from the Macmatte matte petition website that lots of people want matte screens but Apple just does not listen.
Mark these words: Apple will becomes just as evil as the original evil empire. You see the signs on the wall. When you stop to think, there's nothing that makes Apple any less better, except for ... less marketshare, and a nicer user interface. Apple, even at this early stage of 9% marketshare, is showing signs. Draconian NDA's for iPhone developers. Removing the matte screen option when most polls show that between 40 and 60% of people prefer matte. Literally, Apple could not care a stuff about it's customers. It is all about their money. So, if that's how they are when they are 9% marketshare, can you imagine Apple when it gets to 40% marketshare? It could be horrific. It's like the Godzilla movies. When the old monster (Microsoft) dies, a new even more vile monster rises to take it's place. And the world is no longer safe.
In the next business cycle, Apple has developed a strangle-hold on another OS called OSX/iPhone, and is starting to use that effective monopoly to make Apple become ....
You can see it already in the way Apple do things, simply because they want to, without any consideration for customers. Apple is making tons of money so they don't care if they lose a few customers here and there. I see from the Macmatte matte petition website that lots of people want matte screens but Apple just does not listen.
Mark these words: Apple will becomes just as evil as the original evil empire. You see the signs on the wall. When you stop to think, there's nothing that makes Apple any less better, except for ... less marketshare, and a nicer user interface. Apple, even at this early stage of 9% marketshare, is showing signs. Draconian NDA's for iPhone developers. Removing the matte screen option when most polls show that between 40 and 60% of people prefer matte. Literally, Apple could not care a stuff about it's customers. It is all about their money. So, if that's how they are when they are 9% marketshare, can you imagine Apple when it gets to 40% marketshare? It could be horrific. It's like the Godzilla movies. When the old monster (Microsoft) dies, a new even more vile monster rises to take it's place. And the world is no longer safe.
The question of whether a private entity should have the right to do something is different than the discussion of whether it would be practical. Maybe I'm naive (and undoubtably someone will respond to this post confirming that I am), but I believe that when we say we believe in freedom, we should really mean it. Even if this means Apple and AT&T should be free to control how their product is used. And yes, even if this means that MS should be free to sell their operating system with whatever restrictions they feel are necessary. Furthermore, just as in your ludicrous counterexamples, such behavior poses no threat to the consumer since the consumer, as a rational agent, will always have the choice to simply not purchase the product in the event that doing so would limit their freedom.
That's why the apparent consensus here that we need the government to step in and save us from corporations out of control is so offensive to me. Are we all so stupid, so vulnerable, and so weak and powerless that we need the federal government to save us from our inability to avoid handing over our freedoms to greedy corporations? Really!!?? Critical thinkers out there: do any of you believe that we would need to pass laws to prevent Levi's from telling us what day of the week you can wear your jeans? Or Trojan telling us with whom you are allowed to use their condoms? Of course not! Sure, they should be allowed the freedom to sell their products with such ridiculous stipulations attached. Maybe they'd even have you sign a contract the way AT&T does. Something gives me the thought that it just wouldn't last very long. I dunno, maybe it's just my faith in humankind.
Hi
Overall for developers, yeah it is a risk but it CAN reap high rewards.
Two items for conclusion...
Apple has feedback pages ( http://www.apple.com/feedback ) for most of their products / services. Tell them your opinions, problems ( not relevant to those hacking their products as you need to deal with your fellow hackers ), ... in a polite and thorough manner and I can tell you they are very likely to at least look into them.
I'm a big fan of Google search and Google Maps / Google Earth. I'm fine with Gmail and most of their other services. Google Voice does sound like a good idea. However, in the last couple years I've started to feel Google is walking into dangerous waters. They seem to feel that they can follow the path of Microsoft but also succeed in crossing the River of World Domination that M$ failed at. It's possible but, I think, it's too risky. I'd be much happier if Google put huge efforts into making their current offerings as perfect as possible. Arrogance can create one nasty mob to hunt you down.
Foremost... As a developer, you're in Apple's house or "walled garden" as many are calling it. That means, if they just get a bad vibe from you, they can show you the door. More importantly are the other facts to this case. As with the iVidCam story, one is playing with fire when choosing certain app purposes. You may not get burned but you should damn well know there is most certainly a possibility. We know Apple has this 'thing' of developers copying built-in features, even those that are soon upcoming. Not rocket science to have figured that one out by now. As you pointed out, Google Voice duplicates already in-place standard features ( texting, voicemail, visual voicemail, call forwarding, ... ). Some of these ( i.e. texting ) hurt the carrier and some don't.
Overall for developers, yeah it is a risk but it CAN reap high rewards.
It isn't the same. If you don't like Apple's / AT&T's terms, you can choose to get a Palm Pre or LG enV TOUCH for examples that offer many similar features. Sometimes features ( physical QWERTY keyboard, .. ) that aren't offered on the iPhone. It's closer to OnStar being exclusive to GM and Microsoft's Sync being exclusive to Ford. One can compete but it's not easy. As Apple has proved with the MP3 player, smartphones, ... it is possible.
Just because Apple has succeeded quite well ( with some growing pains ) means they are "throwing their weight around" and "stifling fair competition?" We sure know Palm, Nokia, and RIM are trying to compete but haven't gotten it right yet plus a bit 'late to the party'. The iTunes Store ( formerly the iTunes Music Store ) had some tough growing pains as wel but nowadays it is adjusting fairly well. Give Apple time to sort out the kinks.
Two items for conclusion...
Apple has feedback pages ( http://www.apple.com/feedback ) for most of their products / services. Tell them your opinions, problems ( not relevant to those hacking their products as you need to deal with your fellow hackers ), ... in a polite and thorough manner and I can tell you they are very likely to at least look into them.
I'm a big fan of Google search and Google Maps / Google Earth. I'm fine with Gmail and most of their other services. Google Voice does sound like a good idea. However, in the last couple years I've started to feel Google is walking into dangerous waters. They seem to feel that they can follow the path of Microsoft but also succeed in crossing the River of World Domination that M$ failed at. It's possible but, I think, it's too risky. I'd be much happier if Google put huge efforts into making their current offerings as perfect as possible. Arrogance can create one nasty mob to hunt you down.
But the consumer won't always have the choice if companies are allowed to do whatever they please. That's the point. Companies can, will, and have eliminated choice from the market place when they've had the chance. And, yes, you do seem to be a bit naive. If you read up on the history of monopolies and trust-busting the in US you'll have a better understanding of why the laws are on the books. The laws weren't created because some government bureaucrat was bored. The laws were created because companies gamed the system for their singular benefit and to the detriment of everyone else.
Lethal
Hi
As a side note.. I feel similar to these bailouts. Like GM, Ford, ... couldn't prepare for this and just handing them $$$ is going to motivate them to fix things? Even if the government tries to tell them what to do with this $$$. Right? There is no overnight fix but I just don't think putting our government billions more in debt is the best way of going about it.
N-I-C-E-!-!-! I absolutely agree. Just because AT&T and Apple ( for these examples ) are consumers ( they buy things from others and need to deal with other companies policies / terms / ... ) that have their own businesses means they don't have rights? You can't fight your own battles? The nation in itself is ... Well ... a LOT more powerful together than any government.
As a side note.. I feel similar to these bailouts. Like GM, Ford, ... couldn't prepare for this and just handing them $$$ is going to motivate them to fix things? Even if the government tries to tell them what to do with this $$$. Right? There is no overnight fix but I just don't think putting our government billions more in debt is the best way of going about it.
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!
So only Microsoft apps should run on Windows? And you wouldn't find that anticompetitive?
Anything goes if it's Apple, right?
Please keep it straight - Ford is not bankrupt and using the government to save them.
GM and Chrysler are in trouble - Ford is holding its own.
You mean they were in trouble. The new GM is a legally a different company than the old GM (now called Motors Liquidation MTLQQ
K). The new GM has healthy balance sheet, positive equity and billions in cash. Yes, a lot of damage was done to get to that point, but it is said and done.C'mon, this is getting a little silly. Boohoo, Apple, why don't you like me anymore? Apple, it's always about you, you never listen to my feelings!
I think you may have Apple, a corporation, confused with someone or something that exists for some reason other than to make a profit. I can't really remember a time when Apple existed with the purpose of accomplishing something other than making money for its investors, but you seem to be pretty convinced that at one point Apple's mission statement was essentially to do whatever their customers wanted. This seems unlikely to me, as I can remember on several occasions writing letters to Steve Jobs, telling him I wanted a pony for Christmas. I'm still waiting.
In all seriousness though, no, Apple doesn't owe it to you or me or anyone else to deliver a product or service. They might, however, owe it to their bottom line to deliver on the demands of the marketplace. It would seem logical to me that the company which ignores the needs of its consumer base wouldn't stick around for very long, much less have the staying power and influence that Apple enjoys. But you on the other hand, seem to have come to the conclusion that a corporation which completely ignores the wishes of its customers will not only stick around, but become progressively bigger and more profitable, as in a 31% increase in market share, if I read you correctly. Wow, a revolution in economics. Hang on, I'm gonna get on the horn with Milton Friedman and Adam Smith, they might find this interesting...
Apple are legally able to do most things with the app store, including shutting the whole thing down, but it doesn't make it right, moral, or desirable for them to start making the stupid, arrogant, short-sighted decisions they have these past few months. There are several examples now of capricious decisions which do nothing but make it absolutely impossible to tell if an app may be removed at any time, even after it has been approved for months. That's insanity.
Apologists like yourself are part of the problem, because with users like you making excuses for them, Apple are just going to keep on screwing over their partners, developers, and users whenever they feel like it. Apple 'succeeding quite well' has absolutely nothing to do with this. What people are complaining about is Apple using its weight in one area (iTunes) to try to stifle competition in an arbitrary way - the only people this benefits is Apple, and they'll soon find if they continue to mess around their users that a lot of them decide they won't bother with any Apple stuff. Developers are already starting to leave the platform, and users will follow.
The reason I don't bother with Microsoft products is that they have a track record of screwing their users and partners over when it suits them. If Apple becomes the same, why bother buying Apple products, no matter how nice they are?
As to your last set of comments on Google, I'd say they apply very nicely to Apple at this stage in its life-cycle. Google is not the problem here.
The preamble says "we the people", not "we the people and corporations". The problem with corporations is that they can act as a person, but they don't have that little thing (most) people have called morals. They have a bottom line. So no, just because I say I believe in freedom doesn't mean corporations should be afforded the same freedoms people have. Would you kill an innocent child for $1000? A corporation might if in the end it added some black to their bottom line.
That is because those three manufacturers (plus MS) credit their users with a bit of intelligence when it comes to finding other software sites and what they want to run on their phones.
If imposed those restrictions, do you realize they could never be enforced? i.e. no restrictions. Not simply because I can choose an alternative, but because unreasonable restrictions on how I use MY products (for the simple: things I own) are just that, unreasonable.
These restrictions would neither be practical nor legally enforceable...no reason to draft a new law to prevent undue restrictions be pass on what you do in your own home...you do have some sort of laws already...think real hard.
aside: and if competition is unfairly stamped out (i.e. not by competing but by simply removing them), how do you suppose consumers find alternative (you know, when there is none? Especially in markets with restrictive cost as a barrier to entry?
That's an interesting point. Amazon currently has a problem very similar to this brewing with their Kindle. They recently decided to remotely remove certain copies of '1984' (ah, the irony) from Kindles owned by people who legally bought it. Nowhere in the Kindle TOS does it say your purchases may be remotely removed without warning. Amazon now has a lawsuit on their hand that is likely going to gain class-action status.
Although these two situations are slightly different (I can't tell which situation is worse), Apple should be watching this situation closely. With the way technology is heading, public policy better hurry up because consumer rights are being violated. All these situations seem very scary. Who really owns these devices? With what's going on, it seems like we're just renting them.
I'm glad you bolded that statement because yes, we do need protection. These corporations are simply much too powerful and resourceful for any private citizen to legally fight. Look what Amazon did recently with the Kindle. They remotely removed a book (1984 of all books) from Kindle owners who legally bought it. How is one supposed to legally defend oneself from intrusions like this? Please give me just one example on what the public can do in a situation like this?
I think this is why the FCC is looking into it. It's not that Apple is monopolizing what can go on the iPhone, it's that they are abusing the power. The arbitrary pulling of apps and denials.
I hope all of this will change the policy to a more open transparent form of app approval.
Hi
I'm not making excuses. I find it was evil to approve it snd than remove it 'down thr road'. I would hope / guess it is another leaning experience for Apple and even developers, even if it is extremely unfortunate. Patience and an open mind are essential. Apple ahouldn't do a "me me me" but neither ahould the consumers. It's called give and take. There is NO way to make everyone happy. I wouldn't call Microsoft a monster even. I dislike most of their software and hardware but that's bound to happen. I don't purchase them. I also don't own an AppleTV, an Airport Extreme, or a ton of other Apple products. As pointed out, companies 'die' if they completely neglect customers.