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
What corporate culture?
Google has been grilled for (1) being an open source leech, (2) lopping grenades all over the place just to cause trouble: (i) double-talked on net neutrality [and later signing deals with carriers] and (ii) demanding FCC changes to the 700 Mhz spectrum auction yet had zero intention to bid to win.
Google is richer than God, has a monopoly position that even the Bush administration (who okayed basically every mergers in the last 8 years) can't stomach a Google/Yahoo merger, has more information on you than the US government (where privacy rights will be the most important issue in the next 50 years in the US Supreme Court)...
1) No more than Apple. They have both contributed a lot to OSS in general. Never enough to satisfy some and I am sure they have both benefited.
2i)Sometimes you have to deal with the devil.
2ii) but were successful in using it to apply pressure to advance their agenda with that auction. Nothing wrong with encouraging openness by threatening to buy it up and force it.
Nothing here really relates to how their approval process compares to Apple's. like I said, for the FCC requests to bite google in the ass, would assume their processes are very similar. One might even assume the FCC's questions to google were to gain information to compare and contrast the two.
Yeah, I'm sure making IE the default browser and Outlook Express the default mail client on the only other major platform at the time was tremendously helpful in the antitrust case.
No, they shouldn't have told everyone to buy a PC, but launching a smear campaign against an investor and partner is just f'ed up. They could've concentrated their advertising efforts on explaining why you should buy a Mac, rather than smear tactics that make presidential campaign ads look dignified.
Jobs *is* a backstabber, he's famous for it, books have been written on the subject. This quote sums it up pretty well:
"Steve Jobs is the master of being your best buddy while planning to stab you in the back. His biographies are filled with stories that do more than suggest that if he wants what you have, youd better grab it and run for the hills."
Yeah, I'm sure making IE the default browser and Outlook Express the default mail client on the only other major platform at the time was tremendously helpful in the antitrust case.
From the same link in your post at #391.
MS BITES INTO APPLE
Lethal
Convenience for the most part, by automating things, like selecting which of your phones will ring when connecting out bound calls or using the built in address book to select the number to call. The voicemail feature would be enhanced and made much more useful through Push Notifications.
Really? What Apps have Google rejected from the Android Marketplace? I thought nothing got rejected. I tried to do a search for "Android App rejections" and all I get are stories about Apple rejecting Google Voice. It's all over the Interwebz. And, I found this gem too:
http://www.iphonefirmware.com/2009/...app-then-files-a-patent-for-a-karaoke-player/
Google is going to be held to a much HIGHER standard because they are much more of a monopoly --- a la Microsoft.
you clearly don't know anything about google android apps. why do apple sheep who only know apple products even try to talk about other things?
... In the search and search related advertising areas, yes. In the mobile OS and related application markets, not by a long shot. Apple is far and away the leader in the AppStore genre and dominates google, so far, in the mobile OS market.
I don't remember which, but I recall reading of one app that was denied (or type of app that was forbidden) on android. What I do remember is that it was a carrier concern that was at issue...I think it may have been VOIP over the 3G connection.
You are right though, there haven't been many/any reports of arbitrary denials or denying indy devs to create an advantage for google. And from experience, developers are a noisy, complaining bunch and it would have been discussed quite publically.
AT&T Blames Apple for iPhone Google Voice Rejection
"Under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T has passed the blame for the Google Voice application rejection on to partner Apple. According to AT&T's spokesperson, "AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it."
The FCC has demanded that Apple and AT&T explain the process by which applications are rejected. In particular its asking what contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T influence app store rejections. "
The insinuation by AT&T, though, that it plays no part in app store policing and that regulation is solely the work of Apple is flat out false, though. AT&T previously ordered Apple to force Slingbox to operate over WiFi only.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15880
AppleT&T. A marriage made in hell.
"Under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T has passed the blame for the Google Voice application rejection on to partner Apple. According to AT&T's spokesperson, "AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it."
The FCC has demanded that Apple and AT&T explain the process by which applications are rejected. In particular its asking what contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T influence app store rejections. "
The insinuation by AT&T, though, that it plays no part in app store policing and that regulation is solely the work of Apple is flat out false, though. AT&T previously ordered Apple to force Slingbox to operate over WiFi only.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15880
AppleT&T. A marriage made in hell.
Why would Apple approve an app for the iPhone that conflicts with or otherwise encroaches upon the service AT&T provides? Apple and AT&T have a relationship, and the user really has no business using an app that enables them to circumvent AT&T's service. It would be odd for Apple to allow one.
If you want a Google Voice app then ask Google to subsidize your phone.
If you want a Google Voice app then ask Google to subsidize your phone.
AT&T provides a service that lets us to dial out with our Google Voice number? Please, tell me how via native apps.
You have to realize that dialing out with Google Voice does NOT change the channels in which you use your phone. You are still using the minutes you pay for.
Google Voice offers for free some features that compete with services that AT&T charges for.
Yet you still want full access to AT&T's network without them saying anything.
Again, let's get Google to subsidize your iPhone. Because I'm sure Google will have no problem maintaining that hypothetical cellular/data network of theirs by offering all those free services. Not to mention that subsidizing a phone like the iPhone costs quite a bit in the first place, as well as maintaining a technical service/customer support infrastructure. But Google can pull it off because they can pay for all of that with the money that drops out of the clear blue sky.
Google is not a carrier. It has no cellular/data network to maintain along with all the associated services that customers expect. Google doesn't have to subsidize data-intensive smartphones. They can simply waltz in an offer a set of services for next to nothing, and for some reason, you as the customer expects AT&T to pull off the same trick, and when they can't you complain about it.
Or if you think that the company providing the network should be separate from the company providing the services on that network, then who are you going to call when something goes wrong? Who gets to assume the blame? Will Google's breakdown in service be blamed on innocent AT&T's network, or vice versa? How do you propose to achieve a separation of powers?
You want AT&T to function as merely a bare network? Fine. Then be prepared for neither the carrier nor the plan-provider (since they are now separate entities) to assume any responsibility for the other's issues. I'd love to see this scenario in action and the kind of customer service "situation" it would cause.
Expect to see more intrusive regulations soon. In some places it's illegal to listen to your iPod/MP3 player above a certain volume. Obama LOVES that kind of stuff. And you thought the Patriot Act was bad...
Who wants to bet there will be a complete overhaul of the U.S. Constitution in a few years?
I'll be the first to LOL when that happens.
Google Voice offers for free some features that compete with services that AT&T charges for.
Yet you still want full access to AT&T's network without them saying anything.
Again, let's get Google to subsidize your iPhone. Because I'm sure Google will have no problem maintaining that hypothetical cellular/data network of theirs by offering all those free services. Not to mention that subsidizing a phone like the iPhone costs quite a bit in the first place, as well as maintaining a technical service/customer support infrastructure. But Google can pull it off because they can pay for all of that with the money that drops out of the clear blue sky.
Google is not a carrier. It has no cellular/data network to maintain along with all the associated services that customers expect. Google doesn't have to subsidize data-intensive smartphones. They can simply waltz in an offer a set of services for next to nothing, and for some reason, you as the customer expects AT&T to pull off the same trick, and when they can't you complain about it.
Or if you think that the company providing the network should be separate from the company providing the services on that network, then who are you going to call when something goes wrong? Who gets to assume the blame? Will Google's breakdown in service be blamed on innocent AT&T's network, or vice versa? How do you propose to achieve a separation of powers?
You want AT&T to function as merely a bare network? Fine. Then be prepared for neither the carrier nor the plan-provider (since they are now separate entities) to assume any responsibility for the other's issues. I'd love to see this scenario in action and the kind of customer service "situation" it would cause.
You do realize that Google Voice is entirely functional even without the app, right? AT&T or any other provider cannot block Google Voice. All they can do is just make it less convenient.
AT&T needs to block calling cards by your logic.
I assume you don't have a GV account because you don't understand what it is.
Some light reading, while you're waiting.Who wants to bet there will be a complete overhaul of the U.S. Constitution in a few years?
LOL at Apple/AT&T being so goddamned controlling over what users do with their own phones.
So much wrong, so little time.
1) Neither AT&T or Apple is providing the app. Apple is preventing users from buying it on the AppStore. Since this is the only way to get legit apps on the iPhone, user cannot use it.
2) Every feature of the Google Voice service is still available on your iPhone, by using the web site. so their blockade is simple meant to inconvenience you.
3) The services that GV offers are available through many other iPhone apps.
4) The services that you seem to think encroach on AT&T's network are completely legal identical to services that have been used by consumers for years. i.e. have you ever used a calling card? Do you feel you are taking advantage of AT&T or circumventing their service when you do? This is exactly the same.
5) Why would you ask google to subsidize the phone? AT&T benefits when you use services like GV because you are still using your local minutes to make the calls and to receive the calls
Why is this so hard for people to understand. I understand people have an issue with the government getting involved, but at least use arguments that hold some water.
Why so confused. Do you ask AT&T for permission when you normally make phone calls? Calls to the GV service are not free. You still pay AT&T for the callsGoogle Voice offers for free some features that compete with services that AT&T charges for.
Yet you still want full access to AT&T's network without them saying anything.
huh? I am sure google and AT&T might just for for a deal like this. As long as it meant we could use all AT&T services for free. Otherwise, if you are paying AT&T to make calls, then you should be allowed to make calls as part of your AT&T subsidy on your iPhone, no?
Not sure where any of that line of thought comes from. No point arguing against it I guess.
Open and transparent approval of apps on the AppStore, that avoids the operator using it as a kludge against independent developers.
Again, it would seems that your entire argument stems from a complete and utter misunderstanding of what the google voice service is and how it is used.
Think of it as a calling card. or an alternative long distance provider. Do you see how all of your points are now invalid? Or maybe you don't. I suppose if someone felt that using calling cards was immoral and that consumers should always have to use the long distance service of their local phone service provider, I could see how you would arrive at your position.
They blocked tethering apps, seems even 'open' Google is at the helms of the carriers.
I think the crux of the issue is that it loosens their grip on your contact numbers just that little bit more, and that they probably don't want to give that up.
Google Voice doesn't seem that different from what Vonage, etc. already do. If there is a difference, its that you get a more portable number, and I'm sure the traditional phone companies hate to not have you tied to their infrastructure. IIRC, there was a court case to determine that you should be able to move your 800-number service to another long distance provider and still keep the number. Then there was the FCC decision (might've also been part of a court ruling?) that allowed you to keep your cell number when changing cell companies. I'd guess that this is just another giant telecom fighting to keep whatever grip it holds on you for as long as they can.