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

Peace said:
Ok. Now I see part of the picture..Thanks for that info.

In the future you might try being a bit less condescending though.:)

So then what happens if a person that has a data plan with sms on the AT&T network decides to drop the data and sms plan from their iPhone ?
Is the person relegated to WiFi only ? Or can the person still use AT&T's cell towers.
Click to expand...

WiFi only. You get the cell tower data only if you pay for it.
 
solace said:
you could send SMS without a data plan (and just pay per SMS), but for any other data apps (even the built-in stuff, email, maps, weather, etc.) you could only use them via wi-fi
Click to expand...


Thanks but I was referring to the apps you linked to. What happens to them ? Can a person still send sms text over AT&T's 3G network ?

My point is if Apple and AT&T are gonna walk the talk. The above mentioned apps should be removed also since they too depend on a data plan from your carrier.

Sounds more and more like AT&T is forcing Apple to do their bidding.
 
I've never understood why Apple can reject apps based on 'duplicated functionality'. It started with the rejection of the Opera browser long ago, and now the Google Voice app. I don't want duplicated fart apps, I want real useful apps. And Apple rejects them based on ass reasons, clearly anti-competitive. It's ridiculous.
 
How could ATT be behind it? ATT sells phones with VOIP, just not the IPhone. Apple is known for pushing monopolistic practices, they are becoming evil. Still, Google Voice is only in the US, which is usually the sign of very poor marketing and limited commitment to the market. If not used for international calls, I don't see why Google Voice should be useful to anyone.
 
Peace said:
Thanks but I was referring to the apps you linked to. What happens to them ? Can a person still send sms text over AT&T's 3G network ?
Click to expand...

an SMS...

it depends. most old school phones that don't have any data options send SMS over GPRS and not Edge or 3G, but i'm not sure if the iPhone on AT&T is able to send SMS over GPRS or without a data plan (i'm sure someone has tried already)

but those apps i mentioned above no, those are strictly data only apps and require at least an Edge connection to function.
 
Peace said:
Thanks but I was referring to the apps you linked to. What happens to them ? Can a person still send sms text over AT&T's 3G network ?

My point is if Apple and AT&T are gonna walk the talk. The above mentioned apps should be removed also since they too depend on a data plan from your carrier.

Sounds more and more like AT&T is forcing Apple to do their bidding.
Click to expand...

Apps like TextFree are similar to Google Voice. You don't send an SMS from your phone but rather a data-based message which then gets relayed as SMS to the recipient. Think of using a chat client like AIM to send text messages.
 
princigalli said:
How could ATT be behind it? ATT sells phones with VOIP, just not the IPhone. Apple is known for pushing monopolistic practices, they are becoming evil. Still, Google Voice is only in the US, which is usually the sign of very poor marketing and limited commitment to the market. If not used for international calls, I don't see why Google Voice should be useful to anyone.
Click to expand...
have you used Google Voice yet? (and again, Google Voice has absolutely NOTHING to do with VOIP yet at this point, it doesn't support it at all :mad:)

making cheaper international calls isn't even a feature of Google Voice that I care about (although it can be done already). it's mainly for the one number service really, but there's plenty of other features that make it a very useful service.
 
Mackan said:
I've never understood why Apple can reject apps based on 'duplicated functionality'. It started with the rejection of the Opera browser long ago, and now the Google Voice app. I don't want duplicated fart apps, I want real useful apps. And Apple rejects them based on ass reasons, clearly anti-competitive. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I can accept the fact that they don't want to offer it through their store. It's, well, their store. The real crux of the problem is that their store is the only way to get stuff onto the iPhone. I'd be miffed if the only way to get applications onto my Mac was to download them from Apple. I don't see why iPhones are excused just because they're handheld devices, they're just computers that happen to be tiny. If they try this with the upcoming tablet I think there will be trouble from the likes of the European Commission... Apple has been able to fly under their radar so far, but those days are numbered methinks. They recently made Microsoft bend over backwards to add a ballot screen for browser installation in Windows 7...
 
Anuba said:
I can accept the fact that they don't want to offer it through their store. It's, well, their store. The real crux of the problem is that their store is the only way to get stuff onto the iPhone. I'd be miffed if the only way to get applications onto my Mac was to download them from Apple. I don't see why iPhones are excused just because they're handheld devices, they're just computers that happen to be tiny. If they try this with the upcoming tablet I think there will be trouble from the likes of the European Commission... Apple has been able to fly under their radar so far, but those days are numbered methinks.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: :cool:
 
This concept that an app cannot duplicate functionality already in the iPhone is B.S. There are TONS of apps that duplicate functionality already on the iPhone. There's also the opposite. Apple has released an app that duplicates functionality of existing iPhone apps.

Take the MobileMe iDisk app that Apple just released. There are already a whole bunch of apps that let you connect to your iDisk or WebDAV disk like DAV-E. Other developers charge for their apps. Apple just dropped a freebie. WTF?? I'd say there's a bit of conflict of interest there.

The app store needs some reform. There really need to be some more descriptive guidelines of what types of things developers should be aware of. Also, if an app is rejected, some indication of why and what the developer can do to fix the problem. Not everyone is Trent Reznor.

Apple should really just be in the business of screening apps for malware or security holes when it comes to app approval. The second they started deciding to control the content was their big mis-step. Who cares if you can buy a fart app or a rich app? Big deal. Apple blew it. Once they started trying to regulate the content it went all bad. Can you imagine if they pulled that crap on the Mac???
 
skellener said:
This concept that an app cannot duplicate functionality already in the iPhone is B.S. There are TONS of apps that duplicate functionality already on the iPhone. There's also the opposite. Apple has released an app that duplicates functionality of existing iPhone apps.

Take the MobileMe iDisk app that Apple just released. There are already a whole bunch of apps that let you connect to your iDisk or WebDAV disk like DAV-E. Other developers charge for their apps. Apple just dropped a freebie. WTF?? I'd say there's a bit of conflict of interest there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and that Voice Memo thing... there were already dozens like it. They should start rejecting their own apps on grounds of functionality duplication.
 
kdarling said:
The letters say that they (Apple, ATT, Google) can ask for secrecy if they wish, under the usual rules as outlined in 47 CFR 0.457 - 47 CFR 0.459.. These are the same rules used when getting certification, btw.

This means that they can claim secrecy for information about contract negotiations (not the contracts themselves), trade secrets (can't think of any in this case) and ummm... that's about it. Everything else can be revealed at the FCC's discretion, with five days' warning.

Basically, the FCC is telling them they have some public explaining to do.
Click to expand...

I've thought about this too. It appears looking at the end of ATT's letter, they could request confidentiality for just about any or all of their responses, meaning it does not get to be public knowledge. If there is a lawyer around here, could you explain how this would stand up against a FOIA request, if it can at all?

BL.
 
I cant believe Im saying this...

Go FCC Go!!!


BTW, A company cant be evil if it treats its employees like theyre actually people, and treats companies like actual companies. Not cash cows.
 
slackpacker said:
No Google Whined and told the FCC. Sometimes you have to realize that Google is the evil empire and better left off the iPhone. Why would Apple want a Voice basically Phone App for something it charges money for.... Making Phone calls....
Click to expand...
This isn't about what Apple wants (good lord!), what the FCC wants or what Google wants, it's about the end users' right to choose rather than have Apple dictate it for them. Apple have strayed very far from the spirit of their "1984" ad. It was about breaking free from Big Brother; 25 years later people are jailbreaking their phones to break free from Apple.
 
slackpacker said:
No Google Whined and told the FCC. Sometimes you have to realize that Google is the evil empire and better left off the iPhone. Why would Apple want a Voice basically Phone App for something it charges money for.... Making Phone calls....
Click to expand...

Please learn what Google Voice actually is. Thanks.
 
You can only hope that behind the scenes Apple has planned out the iPhone for the future as non exclusive. Its quite possible to establish the device and dominance of it that they had to get in bed with a traditional crap company like AT&T. But now that the iPhone is the big player and changing the market they better be ready to negotiate from a bigger power position and stop handicapping their device to just one carrier and whatever apps that carrier doesnt deem as harmful to their money and biz.

I'd also be more than happy to see the govt get involved in changing the way the phones and wireless services match up here in the US to more the way it is in Europe where cellular companies compete on the basis of their service moreso than exclusivity of certain handsets and contracts.
 
Why would anyone want this? MORE THAN half of my friends don't even have home phones any more. We use our cell phones when we are at home. Office phone? I keep business and pleasure separate. Okay, tell me why I would still want Google Voice?
AT&T should actually want people to use Google Voice - it gets people to keep their landline service instead of cancelling it.
 
bradl said:
I've thought about this too. It appears looking at the end of ATT's letter, they could request confidentiality for just about any or all of their responses, meaning it does not get to be public knowledge. If there is a lawyer around here, could you explain how this would stand up against a FOIA request, if it can at all?

BL.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but I did take a Media Law class, and from what I remember off the top of my head without looking back at my notes, I remember there being an exemption in FOIA saying that info. will not be released when asked for if it is being used in a trial. This reason could be used if the FCC does in fact pursue the legality of exclusivity contracts (i.e. Apple and ATT). But I see no other reason why the info. would not be released through FOIA. Someone else pointed out before that the only ways that any of the companies would gain confidentiality would be if what they released talked about contract negotiations or trade secrets, which I do not believe is the case with this.
 
Digipimp said:
You can only hope that behind the scenes Apple has planned out the iPhone for the future as non exclusive. Its quite possible to establish the device and dominance of it that they had to get in bed with a traditional crap company like AT&T.
Click to expand...
I believe they have. I think the iPod Touch will be the key to non-exclusivity. Things like the Verizon MyFi will allow you to use whatever device you like to connect to the network. This is the future for the cell carriers. With a MyFi, iPod Touch (with microphone) and something like Skype, you'll never pay for minutes ever again.
 
str1f3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes i hope they put apple out of business and destroy all of their positive revenue into oblivion x10!! {sarcasm}


It's one thing to wish for a positive resolution, its another thing to be blinded by a wide eyed sense of entitlement and wish harm to a great company. Microsoft is an equally great or greater company with imperfect products and legal situations and clauses. How do we have the right to cause it's destruction just because it doesn't perfectly please us in every conceivable way?

For the record i think that the app rejection was handled very poorly and that these companies need to stop reacting out of fear and start responding in their consumers base's best interest as our dollars fuel the machine. I read up on that google voice thing and it's splendid. i hope they get this all sorted rather quickly.
 
About time

Hurray. Great news. Apple really needs brought back to Earth on this one, and a lesson in humility - screwing over partners they relied on for huge parts of the functionality in their phone (Google Maps, Street View etc were made in cooperation with Google) was a dumb move, but they don't seem to realise it.

All those cheering Apple on and offering post-hoc justifications for their anti-competitive actions should consider that Google would be within their rights to just pull the Google Maps app from the iPhone - the justifications given for Apple's behaviour here would justify that sort of nasty move as 'just business'.

They have shown contempt for their customers and partner developers with a series of bad decisions on the app store, and if this decision goes against them, it may mean they look again at the entire app store approval process. Scrapping the subjective and arbitrary reviews by humans for each app, and replacing it with an automated test for crash on launch or private API use would be the best outcome in my opinion.
 
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