Sidebar Sidebar
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

uberamd said:
Don't like the restrictions Apple has? DON'T BUY THE iPHONE!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but iPhone is such a nice device, too nice to be rectified by Apple's AppStore approval policy. Yes, of course, you can refrain from buiyng an iPhone, but that's not the way to go. Besides, we did buy it and some of us for quite a high price (costs about $600 here in Russia, no contract though). I think we deserve to have a bit more choice of apps.

Apple made an amazing piece of hardware and yet spoils it by artificially cutting down the platform's abilities. Don't you want your phone to do that much more?
 
uberamd said:
Nowhere in your contract does it state that you are entitled to applications. What if Apple closed the app store, are you entitled to a refund? Show me where the app store is guaranteed in your contract? You purchased a phone for its set features, applications are extras that have nothing to do with your contract. You are not entitled to ANY applications besides the stock phone apps. If your business is dependent on an application that was NEVER a part of the phone when you signed the contract, you have no smarts at all.

Every point you have made is comical at best.
Click to expand...

Not True Sir, when I bought my iPhoen 3GS the GV Mobile App WAS on the APP Store.

Everyone who bought that APP now has a 3 dollar investment that is going nowhere, and anyone who bought the iPhoen with the intent of using Google Voice Services as presented by GV Mobile has a defunct investment as well.

You need to "Research" before commenting on who's statements are comical.

Further more, in a contract, when something is unstated, it is up for debate. One can easily argue their way out of a contract should they find that actions taken during the term of that contract impede the application of stated terms in the contract. Even if those actions are based on unstated assumptions... Neither party is adequately protected.

So it's really up to AT&T to justify their terms and application of those terms.. I assure you when it's argued in court, the assumption of a "free market" methodology with regards to the immediate perception of the public (and AT&T's general consumer base) will take favor in the eyes of a Judge and Jury over any assumption of corporate protectionism.

You can argue the philosophy any way you like, how-ever this is just what the precedents for cases such as this dictate.

AF
 
uberamd said:
Google Voice was never part of anyones phone so they are not taking a feature away from you. Also you are not paying for access to whatever apps you want, thats not part of your contract. You honestly expect AT&T and Apple to disclose every possible exception to the app store? Then what... they change it when an unforeseen situation comes up with an app and give everyone a chance to cancel the contract? Think before you comment.
Click to expand...

I think his point was that he pays AT&T to use data, so he expects to use this data however he pleases, within the technological limits of the device.

The best compromise for this whole situation is if Apple allowed people to JB without having any effect on the warranty. If Apple wants to have their high-walled kingdom, with its many rules, then fine. Sort of like "if you're going to live under this roof, you have to live by my rules" our parent's used to say. Well, Apple should allow us to leave the house under fair terms and conditions. Then people could really use AT&T's data (and their own phone) however they please.
 
It's too bad they called attention to themselves by first allowing the apps, then removing them.

In any case, ATT would be the main one in trouble.

There's little doubt that Apple has removed or modified apps at ATT's request. (Which makes Apple either complicit, a wimp, or really bad at negotiating exclusive contract terms. So much for changing the way things work.)

Since the 1990s, the FCC has leaned towards consumer choice. This means allowing provider competition, even to the point of carriers being forced to allow others to lease their lines. (E.g. you can get any internet provider, and any long distance carrier, even though ATT or Qwest or Verizon or whoever, actually built the line to your home.)

This also thankfully resulted in the local number portability that allows us to keep our cell numbers as we move between wireless carriers.

I was working with carriers fifteen years ago when the FCC originally required broadband providers to let any app in as well. (My job was to design the common APIs to use.) Sounds like they're leaning that way again... that is, for application freedom for the consumer.
 
uberamd said:
Google Voice was never part of anyones phone so they are not taking a feature away from you. Also you are not paying for access to whatever apps you want, thats not part of your contract.
Click to expand...
Which is why the ancient concept of minutes for voice, charges per text and others need to fade away. You simply need a connection to the network.

The Verizon MyFi is a step in the right direction. A tiny device that you can keep in your pocket that gives you an instant WiFi bubble that you can use how you like to connect to their network. This is the future of cell carriers. If you have this device, you can use your laptop, your iPod Touch, your WiFi enabled camera - anything that has WiFi. It doesn't matter. This is how all connections should be. It really doesn't matter what device you want to use at that point. I see this as Apple's window into all the other cell carriers. Add a microphone to the iPod Touch and use a MyFi type device from any carrier you want. This will free Apple from beholding to any single carrier.
 
kdarling said:
There's little doubt that Apple has removed or modified apps at ATT's request. (Which makes Apple either complicit, a wimp, or really bad at negotiating exclusive contract terms. So much for changing the way things work.)
Click to expand...

And they even admitted such in the past, too. There was a memo out of AT&T in the recent past explaining why other AT&T phones enjoyed Slingplayer over 3G and why the iPhone could not. AT&T's answer was simply because they could "control the content" of the iPhone, whereas with their other phones, they could not. I'd like to see how AT&T talk their way out of this one.
 
uberamd said:
Google Voice was never part of anyones phone so they are not taking a feature away from you. Also you are not paying for access to whatever apps you want, thats not part of your contract. You honestly expect AT&T and Apple to disclose every possible exception to the app store? Then what... they change it when an unforeseen situation comes up with an app and give everyone a chance to cancel the contract? Think before you comment.
Click to expand...

Actually, YES. If they are going to impose restrictions on the USE of a product and apply contactual terms to that product then they MUST state the terms of use. That includes applications and the methodology for approval and acceptance of those applications into the APP Store.

Let's clarify one thing... Apple has an approval process for the APP store because they want to control the user experience. They want to ensure the user experience is positive and consistent. As such, they should have standards for applying a methodology for assurance of this user experience. It's basic quality control principals.

How-ever in the contract with AT&T, the Apple App Store is not adequately documented with regards to an expectation on user experience. Without clear indications as to what user experience can be expected the consumer should not be expected to commit to that contract.

You can argue that the consumer "should know this for themselves and thus be able to decide whether to sign". How-ever the average consumer is not a legal professional and thus contract law is not at the forefront of their minds when they sign.

This situation wreaks on so many levels, anti competitive behavior, disregard for basic consumer rights and possible malicious intent with regards to contract application and market protection.

These practices are at the core, unfair. Dressing them up doesn't make them look any prettier.

AF
 
For somebody who so badly wants and needs to extend their sweetheart, exclusive iphone deal, AT&T sure are behaving pretty snotty lately.
 
The reason for this is very simple. The people in the FCC are proboblay iPhone users and they were really looking forward to using Google Voice themselves..
 
We will never see any information from either company because they can request confidentiality and that pretty much shuts the door for the consumer. This is such a smoke screen considering that the cell industry has a very powerful arm in Washington.
 
atomic.flip said:
You're exactly correct! This is anti-competitive behavior at it's core and if the FCC can't get Apple back in line then you can rest assured that the DOJ will be all over Apple with some sort of Anti-trust suit.

And Apple has no chance of winning this one because if any judge ruled in favor of apple blocking apps that compete with their core services then Microsoft would have precedent to essentially go back on a majority of suits they lost for exactly this sort of thing.

If I had to guess, I would say that Apple will mysteriously allow Google Voice into the App store and begin to play nice with the big boys but will certainly continue its anti-competitive practices against smaller developers... that is of course until some one brings a class action to them.

AF
Click to expand...

One big difference. Apple owns the whole widget. They don't just write the Operating system for it. And its someone else's hardware. Its just like your TV or even your car. It's systems are designed to work with it. Aftermarket companies can design accessories for its software within limits but the Manufacture decides which ones they will allow and if it will be sold thru their network of dealers, because they have to support it and warranty the car. Its the same thing. If you have a store you can sell what you want. If its something that does not fit your company or you find offensive or whatever you can remove it from your store.

Apple would be foolish to allow an app to use AT&T's network to cheat AT&T out of revenue, when it's AT&T that subsidizes the phones.
 
I'm glad the FCC is looking into the rural coverage areas of these "exclusive" carriers where service is either non-existent or really bad. PLEEESE let the other carriers play in the iPhone game. Not everyone wants to deal with AT&T's crap.
 
X38 said:
For somebody who so badly wants and needs to extend their sweetheart, exclusive iphone deal, AT&T sure are behaving pretty snotty lately.
Click to expand...

From Stephenson's own words it sounds as if they already lost the exclusive deal especially when you hear that the tablet is going to Verizon.

It amazes me how many people are defending Apple in this thread. If it was Microsoft would you have behaved differently? I think so.

I hope the FCC fines Aplle & AT&T for the maximum amount x10.
 
NoExpectations said:
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!
:D
Click to expand...
Wow.

It is amazing how people can completely miss the point and yet they still post.

You own the Ford. Now they tell you that you cannot upgrade any parts without their approval. You may only put in gas from the new Ford GasStore. Oh, and you may only listen to approved radio stations on your dial.
 
uberamd said:
Nowhere in your contract does it state that you are entitled to applications. ....
Click to expand...

i guess nowhere it says that you are required to think reasonably before you post here either, and YOU are taking full advantage of this loophole....
 
NoExpectations said:
.....there was a business contract written and signed by both Apple and AT&T. Both companies included terms, conditions, definitions, and limitations to protect their services, assets, and financial gains.

Why would AT&T allow the use of another company's voice network? Would Apple allow the use of a competitor's App Store app on their phone? They won't...makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

Have you ever considered using a long distance provider that is not your local phone company? You are allowed to, even though you would be using the local lines of your local phone company.

Ever tried using a calling card on your cell phone? You are allowed to. For AT&T to block you from using calling cards and calling services would get them investigated.

Google voice is NO different.
 
genovelle said:
One big difference. Apple owns the whole widget. They don't just write the Operating system for it. And its someone else's hardware. Its just like your TV or even your car. It's systems are designed to work with it. Aftermarket companies can design accessories for its software within limits but the Manufacture decides which ones they will allow and if it will be sold thru their network of dealers, because they have to support it and warranty the car. Its the same thing. If you have a store you can sell what you want. If its something that does not fit your company or you find offensive or whatever you can remove it from your store.

Apple would be foolish to allow an app to use AT&T's network to cheat AT&T out of revenue, when it's AT&T that subsidizes the phones.
Click to expand...

A fair point, how-ever AT&T subsidizes the iphones in exchange for a contract commitment, which is full filled by the consumer. Apples decisions on app store approvals 'should' have no bearing on AT&T's subsidy practices.

These claims you make are exactly the same arguments presented and rejected time and time again by companies like Microsoft and the Cable Providers.

If your reasoning were to stand then Microsoft should be allowed to block any and all Web Browsers with exception to Internet Explorer from running on windows... they should also be allowed to block itunes from installing on windows, heck they should even be allowed to stop an Ipod from even connecting to a windows PC.

You see, its one thing if I say I will not support a third party's efforts to develop a non-standard accessory or application for my product, how-ever its entirely different when I stop them from developing, break their solution and then prevent the consumer from seeking their services.

By controlling the App store Apple is creating a monopolistic ecosystem for their operating system and devices. Apple must either allow a third party app store on their product, with no warranty of course or change their policies. This cannot continue as their market share grows... what happens if one day, all other phone companies go out of business because of the popularity of the iPhone? Are we then subject to the wills of just that one company and their opaque policies?

You can see clearly why this should be stopped.

AF
 
I bet Apple probably wishes it could accept it in hindsight. It would have been quietly accepted by the GV users and such. Now, there's tons of press, and people who don't even use GV are paying attention.
 
Let me get this straight.

I pay AT&T for voice and sms text messaging.

Google has an app that lets you do text messaging.
Apple rejected this app.

People are peeved because they cant pay Google to do something you can already do on the iPhone..

Am I missing something ?
 
Fcc

NoExpectations said:
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!
:D
Click to expand...

The real comparison is that I want to put a Bose audio system in my Ford but, they won't let me because it duplicates the function of their own radio. I own the car, right? I should be able to modify it anyway I want?
Truth is you'd come closer to being allowed to change out the "engine" on your iphone that adding an app that Apple doesn't like.
 
cere said:
Have you ever considered using a long distance provider that is not your local phone company? You are allowed to, even though you would be using the local lines of your local phone company.

Ever tried using a calling card on your cell phone? You are allowed to. For AT&T to block you from using calling cards and calling services would get them investigated.

Google voice is NO different.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! and this is exactly why the Big Bell was broken up so many years ago... sheesh will the cycle ever end lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back