FCC Investigating Apple's Rejection of Google Voice iPhone Application

[CBJammin103]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A400 Safari/528.16)

First of all, many of you seem to be forgetting that Google Voice DOES WORK (!!) on the iPhone. Just like it does on any other phone. There just isn't an app for it. Apple or AT&T didn't stop GV from functioning. Before you make all your rants about Apple becoming "Big Brother," consider Wal Mart pulling an item off of their shelves. Would the government get involved EVEN IF they gave some cr@ppy reason like "it's similar to a product we already offer?" No... instead it would be their loss of your business.



To me it's the same thing here. Apple pulled a product off the shelf, and suddenly the FCC is involved. Hell, there's still full, 100% functionality of GV and there's a perfectly decent web app out there. Isn't it a bit absurd to demand that having a Google Voice app on your phone is your legal right? If Apple pulled the app because they didn't like the NAME of it, that should be "legally" perfectly fine. They would just suffer by loss of business; that's how the U.S. economy is supposed to work.

 

[kernkraft]

Rotten Apple!

Yet again, Apple proved that this corporation bully puts its own interests first, even if it means using risky practices. Who cares about consumers having more choices and better service, if you can just protect your market position?

Don't get me wrong, until a certain degree, this is what everybody is doing. But Apple is really pushing the boundaries. Microsoft paid the price for the inclusion of Explorer - one day, Apple will have to pay for its damaging iTunes practices and more importantly, other manufacturers will be able to offer Apple software on their own hardware.

Finally, I sold my 2.4GHz unibody MacBook and at a loss, I purchased a new 2.26GHz one. Guess what - the fan is constantly on and there is CPU-whine. This makes it the 8th (!) Apple portable in our family to have some form of defects, ranging from cracks through overheating, HDD failure, various noises, faulty graphic cards to misaligned keys.

Now I officially HATE Apple.

 

[kntgsp]

Good.

And if it's Apple I hope the FCC rips them a new one. Screw them and the ambiguous app approval.

 

[GeekGirl*]

GV and the App is amazing, I will continue to use it.

 

[scott pruett]

FYI: the Google Voice web app works fine on the iPhone... certainly not as elegant as an app would be... no push notifications... but it works.

http://www.google.com/voice/m

I guess "free" SMS is the main threat to AT&T?

 

[hexor]

Exclusivity more important then App approval process

I live in the US and can't get an iPhone just because I'm not in AT&T's coverage areas. Something seems wrong with that. I'm glad the FCC is looking into this since if you have multiple carriers with the same phone you then have to actually compete based on pricing and quality of network. As it is now AT&T gets away with performing poorly in both areas because they have no competition if you want an iPhone!

 

[cere]

FYI: the Google Voice web app works fine on the iPhone... certainly not as elegant as an app would be... no push notifications... but it works.

http://www.google.com/voice/m

I guess "free" SMS is the main threat to AT&T?

I would suggest the SMS functionality might be AT&T's main reason, but that wasn't enough to keep them off the store before. I think the official app, with Push and VVM was the catalyst fit Apple denying them.

Users dropping VVM for GV VVM in a GV app would directly impact Apple's revenue. They get paid for every user that subscribes to VVM on their partner networks, so us dropping that service hits then and AT&T...ang bang, it is denied.

The third party GV apps were allowed and then suddenly pulled. What happened? I think Apple needed a reason beyond 'free long distance and SMS' as these are already around and or common on the AppStore. Push in 3.0 now allows a GV app to let you know immediately when you have new messages, just like Apple's VVM. The GV app would then let you browse your voice mail and listen to the ones you want, just like Apple's VVM.

A true replacement for iPhone's VVM because of push is really the only thing I can think of that has changed recently.

 

[HyperZboy]

Because the FCC has jurisdiction over all telecommunications in the US...and there's already an inquiry going on about devices being made exclusive to one carrier. This is just adding fuel to the fire.

--DotComCTO

People so often forget that technically, at least in the U.S., it's all the public's airwaves.

The telecommunications companies are basically paying the government to USE IT.

And bad users can be investigated by the FCC at any time.

This is something most people forget and is why the FCC has jurisdiction.

It's to protect the public's assets and make sure they are used for the public good and in a legal way.

I'm not sure this is Apple's fault, but I do think an investigation into cell phone practices in the U.S. is certainly a good idea and long overdue.

I suspect that Apple would probably go along with anything the FCC advised.
It's AT&T & Verizon who are more likely to fight this battle with the FCC.

 

[kate-willbury]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A400 Safari/528.16)

First of all, many of you seem to be forgetting that Google Voice DOES WORK (!!) on the iPhone. Just like it does on any other phone. There just isn't an app for it. Apple or AT&T didn't stop GV from functioning. Before you make all your rants about Apple becoming "Big Brother," consider Wal Mart pulling an item off of their shelves. Would the government get involved EVEN IF they gave some cr@ppy reason like "it's similar to a product we already offer?" No... instead it would be their loss of your business.



To me it's the same thing here. Apple pulled a product off the shelf, and suddenly the FCC is involved. Hell, there's still full, 100% functionality of GV and there's a perfectly decent web app out there. Isn't it a bit absurd to demand that having a Google Voice app on your phone is your legal right? If Apple pulled the app because they didn't like the NAME of it, that should be "legally" perfectly fine. They would just suffer by loss of business; that's how the U.S. economy is supposed to work.

lol you clearly don't know anything.

 

[scott pruett]

You can drop VVM? News to me, but I haven't looked into it.

GV's system transcribes messages too... it's not totally accurate, but pretty impressive nonetheless. Google has a great setup... I'd fwd my mobile number to my GV number & cancel SMS in a heartbeat if an app gets approved. If VVM could be cancelled to save coin, I'd do that too.

Just sayin.

 

[jzuena]

From what I understand, using Google Voice on AT&T still uses your miniutes. It's just a single # that rings all of your phones. Even if you want to make a call 'from' your Google Voice Number (using gvMobile or doing it manually), it has to use your phone service, it is not a VOIP situation.

AT&T isnt really loosing anything by allowing Google Voice . . . other than control.

Its the ability to send SMS through Google Voice that has AT&T steamed.

 

[cere]

You can drop VVM? News to me, but I haven't looked into it.

GV's system transcribes messages too... it's not totally accurate, but pretty impressive nonetheless. Google has a great setup... I'd fwd my mobile number to my GV number & cancel SMS in a heartbeat if an app gets approved. If VVM could be cancelled to save coin, I'd do that too.

Just sayin.

depends on your carrier. In Canada, I can drop it save $8. I know GV isn't availble yet, but when it is it becomes a concern for Apple's worldwide VVM subs revenue.

 

[Bubba Satori]

“I look at this way: ‘My house my rules’ is a fair statement, but you should make those rules known and you should be consistent. Apple’s approach with its iPhone app developers is more along the lines of ‘Go ahead and try whatever you want and we’ll let you know when we don’t like it anymore, even if we once did.’ There’s no sense of fair play here.”
Duerr’s experience has inspired some strongly negative responses that echo his conviction that Apple isn’t behaving honorably or intelligently.

Anil Dash, Vice President at blog company Six Apart, pointed out in a post that all the mysterious silence may have been OK back when Apple was niche player, but secrecy just doesn’t scale well.

“… This squelching of communication about Apple's products results in customers being unhappy or uncertain of the future value of their purchases, (and) developers being too afraid to bet their livelihoods on a platform whose fundamental opportunities could be destroyed at any time … The sad truth is that Apple is still stuck in an anachronistic, 1984 mode of communicating with the world.”
Duerr says he’s an optimist and believes that the strong public response to this issue can encourage Apple to change the way it works with the development community.

“I’ve been of big supporter of Apple over the years, and I truly want to see them succeed. Doing the right thing by their extended developer network is going to be a key part in achieving that success. The App Store is a huge competitive advantage if it stays vibrant, but if Apple loses that... who knows?”

http://www.maclife.com/article/feature/how_google_voice_debacle_hurting_thirdparty_developers

 

[scott pruett]

depends on your carrier. In Canada, I can drop it save $8. I know GV isn't availble yet, but when it is it becomes a concern for Apple's worldwide VVM subs revenue.

yeah, I don't see the option w/ AT&T.

I was in on the Grandcentral beta, which later transitioned to GV. It's sweet, just not too practical if you have to go through a browser for it every time.

An app would change the story.

 

[Anuba]

"The sad truth is that Apple is still stuck in an anachronistic, 1984 mode of communicating with the world.”
Duerr says he’s an optimist and believes that the strong public response to this issue can encourage Apple to change the way it works with the development community.

Yeah, but in all fairness the silence policy mostly applies to hardware. They're not really secretive about the software, they announce upcoming OS updates long in advance and there are always new builds floating around in the developer community.

Transparency is great and all, but there can be too much of it. Microsoft started blabbering about Longhorn/Vista aeons before they had anything to show, we had to sit through years of experimental demos, reports about features that were later pulled... it was very amateurish and unbecoming of a mega-corporation, at times it was downright embarrassing to watch them with their pants around their ankles. I would've preferred hearing about Vista for the first time when they had the first beta ready.

 

[str1f3]

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.

Apple has $32 billion in the bank. I doubt a serious fine would cause their destruction. Since they care only about cash, let's hope that there is a heavy fine so that they learn to change their ways. It is the only way they will learn. Keep in mind that 'til this day Apple still believes that there are no problems with the App Store. This has little to do with pleasing us and much to do with anti-competitive practices.

 

[str1f3]

Its the ability to send SMS through Google Voice that has AT&T steamed.

And I hope that Congress eventually investigates the racket that is SMS as well.

 

[Spades]

If I'm not mistaken, even a member of the British Royal Family once came to the U.S. for medical treatment unavailable in the UK.

And there are Americans that go overseas to get medical care that is too expensive or unavailable here. That argument goes both ways.

 

[sjo]

There's this amazing thing where consumers don't have to buy a product from company they feel is screwing them, and developers don't have to develop for a platform they feel is screwing them. I know its been an odd, rarely discussed concept in this country lately, but it is called a free market.

you conveniently forget (or maybe you're just not aware) that the whole business of att (and of apple as a supplier) is not based on "free market" but on a right, granted to att by the government acting on behalf of people, to be the only one allowed to use a set of given radio frequencies.

if the people decide that they don't like the way att operates these radio frequencies att can be penalized or ultimately right given earlier can be taken away.

 

[Compile 'em all]

Transparency is great and all, but there can be too much of it. Microsoft started blabbering about Longhorn/Vista aeons before they had anything to show, we had to sit through years of experimental demos, reports about features that were later pulled... it was very amateurish and unbecoming of a mega-corporation, at times it was downright embarrassing to watch them with their pants around their ankles. I would've preferred hearing about Vista for the first time when they had the first beta ready.

No one is asking Apple to talk about their sekret software or hardware plans. We are demanding some transparency and CLEAR guidelines in regards to the app review process. If you reject my app, tell me WHY it was rejected and what do I need to change to get it approved. Removing developers' apps without telling them is flat out ridiculous (read GV and voicecentral).

 

[Winni]

There's this amazing thing where consumers don't have to buy a product from company they feel is screwing them, and developers don't have to develop for a platform they feel is screwing them. I know its been an odd, rarely discussed concept in this country lately, but it is called a free market.

Actually, what Apple created for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform is exactly the opposite of a free ecosystem. This isn't a problem for niche markets, like the Macintosh, but it is a problem for larger markets, like Windows - or the iPhone.

The EU now forces Microsoft to let the user choose which web browser they want to use; the European edition of Windows 7 will NOT come with a pre-installed Internet Explorer.

Since the iPhone, the AppStore and the iPod and iTunes are such a huge success, Apple should also no longer be allowed to have that amount of control over that closed and proprietary platform. Just like Microsoft or any other monopolist, they must not be allowed to abuse their power. They should be forced to allow the Google apps or any other application that competes with some built-in functionality. In my opinion, they also should be forced to allow ANY kind of application as long as it is not harmful. And Apple should also be forced to open their protocols so that competing App Stores can be launched. THAT would be a Free Market: It's about embracing the competition, and not about "allowing not to compete or participate".

 

[sbrhwkp3]

GET THEM US GOV!

I'm sick of not having choices. I want the iPhone on verizon.

 

[Oletros]

I have dozens of illegal alien, Brits with bad teeth, Lady Diana Alive today if the car crash had happened in America, Canadians crossing the border for surgeries, and foreign exchange students in the U.S. JOKES here.

But I think I've already made my point.

Let me know when your country, whichever it might be, has an, ummm, "Johns Hopkins".

I hear they are quite hard to find in Europe, Canada, Mexico & South America.

If I'm not mistaken, even a member of the British Royal Family once came to the U.S. for medical treatment unavailable in the UK. I could probably state dozens of other examples, but I think I've already more than overwhelmingly proven my point.

Having best Hospitals doesn't mean having best Sanity.

Call me when US is not the second worst country in the first world related to neonatal deaths.

 

[thunderclap]

Good. I think Apple's guidelines for allowing apps into the App Store is way too strict.

What guidelines? It seems like they throw a dart at a dartboard that says "Accept" and "Do Not Accept". It's kind of ridiculous.

In any event it seems somewhat anti-competitive to me.

 

[Anuba]

No one is asking Apple to talk about their sekret software or hardware plans. We are demanding some transparency and CLEAR guidelines in regards to the app review process. If you reject my app, tell me WHY it was rejected and what do I need to change to get it approved. Removing developers' apps without telling them is flat out ridiculous (read GV and voicecentral).

Well yeah, that kind of powertripping is just wrong... but what do you expect from a company whose trademark is arrogance. They need something sobering, they haven't had a slice of humble pie crammed down their throats since the mid 90's. The need a Vista debacle of their own.