Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hi
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...
In general, I absolutely agree with this.

In thr case of Google Voice, I feel Apple has an OK reason to deny it. As far as removing the other related apps, it was an attempt to try to be fair to Google. Again... Apple is still likely fine tuning things.
 
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.
There aren't individuals that greedy or unethical? :D Good material you have there. May take me a while to write up a list that large but their most certainly are plenty.
 
Hi
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.
Not that extreme but many products and services do have certain restrictions / requiremrnts added by the manufacturer to assist their profit, not just Apple, Microsoft, Google, or AT&T.

If such severe restrictions were in place there would likely be serious lack of demand and the product / service would fail and vanish. It's happened a LOT throughout history.
 
I have been seeing how Blockbuster is going down. It was the most powerful video renting business. They were very abusing. Once people got fed up and found other services, Blockbuster has been trying desperately to bring people's attention back, but I doubt it is going to be enough. It is a big enterprise, so it takes time. If people gets fed up with Apple because of their abusive behavior, they will go down too. It might seem impossible now because many people like their products, but there are always new products coming out. Let's remember Netscape. Let's see how patient we can be.
 
Hi

Not that extreme but many products and services do have certain restrictions / requiremrnts added by the manufacturer to assist their profit, not just Apple, Microsoft, Google, or AT&T.

If such severe restrictions were in place there would likely be serious lack of demand and the product / service would fail and vanish. It's happened a LOT throughout history.
Perhaps. It would depend on a lot of factors. Competition, barriers to entry for new competitors, collusion between dominant parties in the industry, lack of choice, demand for the product/service, how informed the customer base is.

Realistically, there are very few restrictions on use (within legally allowed activities) that a producer can impose on purchased goods. Personal property laws have been around for so long for a reason.

A more recent invention is licensed products that you do not actually buy, but pay to use. Software is one such area, as is music. Through licensing and terms of usage, producers( rights holders actually) can impose some restrictions on usage, within limits. As rights holders have become richer they have become more powerful and have tried to impose more and more restrictions. This doesn't mean they, yet, have the right to control what you do beyond the agreed upon terms. Further, it is in consumers best interests to occasionally challenge the limitations imposed.
 
Not that extreme but many products and services do have certain restrictions / requiremrnts added by the manufacturer to assist their profit, not just Apple, Microsoft, Google, or AT&T.

Right, but I would say those restrictions are usually different, in that they simply point out what the product is guaranteed to do, and what is covered under warranty.

Normally a user can still try (and often succeed) to use the product out of those bounds. They might lose their warranty, but hey, it's their device and they can try what they want... legally.

The difference with Apple, in this case, is that they don't want the product owner to even try using it outside of exactly what Apple has decided.
 
The difference with Apple, in this case, is that they don't want the product owner to even try using it outside of exactly what Apple has decided.

I wouldn't give a rat's behind what Apple and AT&T want to do in bed if Apple allowed (and supported) jailbreaking. Jailbreaking truly turns this phone into a smartphone and a device you truly own. As it is now, you lose your warranty and have to screw around with it at every firmware update. Furthermore, you have to listen to Apple's arrogance about crashing cell towers and supporting drug dealers.
 
I really would love to see Google Voice apps for the iPhone but I don't understand how the FCC has any jurisdiction over what apps are allowed to be sold in the Apple App Store.
 
One interesting thing reading the Voice Central blog about the chat with Apple and other developer interactions with Apple is Apple has learned well from Google.

That same stonewall and unwillingness to explain things is EXACTLY how Google has managed things with their adsense and adwords programs for years. It is scary how much it is the same. Their complete inability to explain anything specifically and only provide form responses to things that can majorly alter peoples lives and livelyhood.

It is sinister when Google does it, and it is now sinister when Apple does it.
 
I have been seeing how Blockbuster is going down. It was the most powerful video renting business. They were very abusing. Once people got fed up and found other services, Blockbuster has been trying desperately to bring people's attention back, but I doubt it is going to be enough. It is a big enterprise, so it takes time. If people gets fed up with Apple because of their abusive behavior, they will go down too. It might seem impossible now because many people like their products, but there are always new products coming out. Let's remember Netscape. Let's see how patient we can be.

Blockbuster was the victim of evolving technology and business practices. Netflix, iTunes, and Blockbuster's inertia to change is what killed them. We see the same thing happening to the record industry. Even Redbox has a better business model than Blockbuster. There is no need to pay $4.50 to rent a movie - $1 is more fair. If Blockbuster adopted the $1 per movie per night price when Netflix first started to become popular, they would be in a way better position today.

Yes, Apple and AT&T are abusing their power. I just don't see Apple being hurt by this - even if the consumer fully realizes this - for three reasons. Apple makes a superior quality product. It is trendy/cool/hip to own an Apple product (this is the biggy). And Apple's customer service is 2nd to none. For these reasons, Apple can blatantly bend the customer over and the customer will still ask for more.
 
One interesting thing reading the Voice Central blog about the chat with Apple and other developer interactions with Apple is Apple has learned well from Google.

That same stonewall and unwillingness to explain things is EXACTLY how Google has managed things with their adsense and adwords programs for years. It is scary how much it is the same. Their complete inability to explain anything specifically and only provide form responses to things that can majorly alter peoples lives and livelyhood.

It is sinister when Google does it, and it is now sinister when Apple does it.

I think google gets away with it because the average person has no idea what Adsense and Adwords are. As for the iPhone, even Grandma's know what one is.
 
I have been seeing how Blockbuster is going down. It was the most powerful video renting business. They were very abusing. Once people got fed up and found other services, Blockbuster has been trying desperately to bring people's attention back, but I doubt it is going to be enough. It is a big enterprise, so it takes time. If people gets fed up with Apple because of their abusive behavior, they will go down too. It might seem impossible now because many people like their products, but there are always new products coming out. Let's remember Netscape. Let's see how patient we can be.

The FCC is getting involved not because it doesn't seem fair but rather Apple and AT&T may have violated rules. AT&T knows this which is they released a statement saying that they have no involvement with the approval of apps. They both should be investigated alone for the fact that when your contract is up you can't take your iPhone to another carrier. You are still locked into AT&T. This is not even including the racket that is across this whole industry of charging ridiculous prices for unsubsidized phones so you'll have to sign a two year contract with the carriers so they can make more money off you. No where in the tech industry do you see companies having a 70%-100% profit margin except in cell phones. The truth is the phone's price should be closer to the subsidized price.

The situation you mentioned doesn't always turn out that way. There are other instances of other companies following another's example and leaving the consumer with no choices across the marketplace. This is why there are federal rules and guidelines for these different businesses not only in the US but in almost every country.
 
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!!??
The US government has three branches to ensure that neither has absolute power, and it's an equally good idea to have the government as a third party that functions as a kind of marriage counsellor between consumers and producers. Three was always a good number.

Here in the EU we have a history of allowing the government to assume a stronger role in these matters, to keep corporations in check. Having the government serve as a mediator works wonders for the marriage. The result is that there's a rather good vibe between corporations and consumers. You'd think that in a more leftist part of the world there'd be a lot of anti-capitalism sentiments and hatred towards corporations, but actually it's nothing like that. Ironically that seems to be somewhat of an American thing. Few netizens spew more contempt towards corporations and corporate greed than Americans do, I've met actual bona fide communists who are more restrained in their criticism... I mean, is there any American iPhone owner who doesn't want to wipe AT&T from the face of the earth? Me, I love my iPhone carrier, I've kept my telecom business with Telia for 20 years, they always gave me excellent service for peanut money. I used to pay about $25/month for my iPhone 3G and recently changed to another plan where I'm paying about $15. I was thinking about getting the $50/month flat rate plan with unlimited talk time/data/MMS/SMS but I'm not really a heavy user.

And then there's this peculiar culture of lawsuits you have where everyone's itching to sue everyone. Customers suing corporations, corporations suing eachother... we don't have much of that over here, in part due to the fact that corporations are well behaved -- they know there'll be hell to pay if they don't play by the rules, and a government is a powerful adversary. Some lonely customer with a lawsuit isn't.

In my line of work I was at one point handling the sales@ inbox at an EU software company that sold products all over the world through their web shop, and there were some patterns that emerged after a few thousand mails. People from Europe, Japan, Canada and a few other places were generally respectful, trusting, easy going and took honest answers for what they were, while many Americans were rude, aggressive, suspicious and paranoid about getting screwed, looking for a hidden catch, like some kind of abuse victims who had been hurt one time too many to trust anyone again. I was sort of taken aback because I thought "hold on... aren't Americans supposed to love doing business and dealing with sales people, seeing as they're staunch supporters of free markets and privatization of everything from health care to schooling? I'd expect this kind of attitude from Castro, but not these guys..."

It appears to me that allowing corporations to roam free with very little regulation creates a nasty corporate culture and climate that isn't really beneficial to anyone. From a long experience I can tell you that having a government that takes a strong role removes a lot of that friction. A government that knows when to step in and when to stay out of the way. I do NOT want a government that bleeps out curse words or blurs nipples on TV, or demands a 7-second delay on live broadcasts, and luckily I don't. You guys do, and I'm not sure why a country that thrives on freedom puts up with North Korea-style BS like that, but... whatever.
 
Bottom line is this... I bought my iPhone. I didn't rent or lease it. I bought it which means I should be able to use it to its full extent.
 
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?

We've been getting a raw deal from the gov't for generations. Taxes go up for no reason other than greed and power. The gov't and corporations take as much money from the people as they can get. Leaving us with little to live on.

People have paid a lot of money for the iPhone and the monthly service and I think we should be able to use the phone as we feel. Now that's freedom.
 
The US government has three branches to ensure that neither has absolute power, and it's an equally good idea to have the government as a third party that functions as a kind of marriage counsellor between consumers and producers. Three was always a good number.

Here in the EU we have a history of allowing the government to assume a stronger role in these matters, to keep corporations in check. Having the government serve as a mediator works wonders for the marriage. The result is that there's a rather good vibe between corporations and consumers. You'd think that in a more leftist part of the world there'd be a lot of anti-capitalism sentiments and hatred towards corporations, but actually it's nothing like that. Ironically that seems to be somewhat of an American thing. Few netizens spew more contempt towards corporations and corporate greed than Americans do, I've met actual bona fide communists who are more restrained in their criticism... I mean, is there any American iPhone owner who doesn't want to wipe AT&T from the face of the earth? Me, I love my iPhone carrier, I've kept my telecom business with Telia for 20 years, they always gave me excellent service for peanut money. I used to pay about $25/month for my iPhone 3G and recently changed to another plan where I'm paying about $15. I was thinking about getting the $50/month flat rate plan with unlimited talk time/data/MMS/SMS but I'm not really a heavy user.

And then there's this peculiar culture of lawsuits you have where everyone's itching to sue everyone. Customers suing corporations, corporations suing eachother... we don't have much of that over here, in part due to the fact that corporations are well behaved -- they know there'll be hell to pay if they don't play by the rules, and a government is a powerful adversary. Some lonely customer with a lawsuit isn't.

In my line of work I was at one point handling the sales@ inbox at an EU software company that sold products all over the world through their web shop, and there were some patterns that emerged after a few thousand mails. People from Europe, Japan, Canada and a few other places were generally respectful, trusting, easy going and took honest answers for what they were, while many Americans were rude, aggressive, suspicious and paranoid about getting screwed, looking for a hidden catch, like some kind of abuse victims who had been hurt one time too many to trust anyone again. I was sort of taken aback because I thought "hold on... aren't Americans supposed to love doing business and dealing with sales people, seeing as they're staunch supporters of free markets and privatization of everything from health care to schooling? I'd expect this kind of attitude from Castro, but not these guys..."

It appears to me that allowing corporations to roam free with very little regulation creates a nasty corporate culture and climate that isn't really beneficial to anyone. From a long experience I can tell you that having a government that takes a strong role removes a lot of that friction. A government that knows when to step in and when to stay out of the way. I do NOT want a government that bleeps out curse words or blurs nipples on TV, or demands a 7-second delay on live broadcasts, and luckily I don't. You guys do, and I'm not sure why a country that thrives on freedom puts up with North Korea-style BS like that, but... whatever.

LOL, where do you live so I can move there!
 
I like this question from the letter to Google:

5. Are there other mechanisms by which an iPhone user will be able to access either some or all of the features of Google Voice? If so, please explain how and to what extent iPhone users can utilize Google Voice despite the fact that it is not available through Apple’s App Store. Please provide a description of the standards for considering and approving applications with respect to Google’s Android platform. What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)? What is the percentage of applications that are rejected? What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Jailbreak... The user has to jailbreak their iPhones to get the app on the Cydia application directory, of which is unsupported or advised by Apple Inc.

Hang on... why are they moving onto the Android platform?
 
I like this question from the letter to Google:



Jailbreak... The user has to jailbreak their iPhones to get the app on the Cydia application directory, of which is unsupported or advised by Apple Inc.

Hang on... why are they moving onto the Android platform?

I thought they were referring to the fact that even without the GV app, all features of the GV service are available iPhone users. Just in a much less convenient way.
 
Sweden. Wait... is it the cheap iPhone plans you want, or the boobs and cursing on TV? ;)

LOL, I should have known. Sweden gets EVERYTHING. First the Swedish Bikini Team and now $15/month iPhones. I'm going to start looking at some homes over there. ;)
 
LOL, I should have known. Sweden gets EVERYTHING. First the Swedish Bikini Team and now $15/month iPhones. I'm going to start looking at some homes over there. ;)
We have a bikini team? If they have bikinis, they're wearing too much. :cool:

It's not so much a $15/month iPhone, it's just a regular plan attached to an iPhone. As a previous customer who already had a plan they allowed me to keep that plan and simply buy the iPhone 3G, unlocked, for... I dunno, $500 or whatever it was. But they have sweet subsidized deals too, and as of last week there are three carriers who offer iPhones so the pricing is pretty competitive. Oh, and 1) MMS works, 2) tethering works and doesn't cost extra.
 
I thought they were referring to the fact that even without the GV app, all features of the GV service are available iPhone users. Just in a much less convenient way.

That's what I initially thought, but, the FCC needs to know more than that.
 
I thought they were referring to the fact that even without the GV app, all features of the GV service are available iPhone users. Just in a much less convenient way.

Well then, why did they need to remove the app then and block another? To stifle competition, in collusion with AT&T. Here comes the pimp slap...
 
I'm with you on this one. :)
Yeah, what's up with that censoring nonsense. Children do not explode at the sight of nipples. We can surmise this from the fact that nipples were the first thing they ever saw, and up close too. Their first few months of life are usually a non-stop wardrobe malfunction.

I can't believe people are complaining when the FCC is doing something useful for once. This may end up being the first time they'll do a pro-freedom thing.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.