FCC Investigating Apple's Rejection of Google Voice iPhone Application

[tmoore049]

i thought the 'web' was the new direction??

am i the only one who sees some irony here? google made it very public that they were interested in expanding the use of the 'web' to progress technology, now they (and everybody else) are whining about apple rejecting a native app? personally im glad this app got rejected if only for the simple fact it should teach anybody a lesson about publicly slamming a potential partner. i honestly feel that any application google makes for anything now is perversely hypocritical. just my thought...

 

[kas23]

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

That's because were pushing the limits of age of viability. In the US, babies are being delivered (and in a lot of cases, dying) that would never have a sniff of a chance in other countries. This includes premies as well as high-risk infants born to mothers of advanced maternal age.

 

[kas23]

am i the only one who sees some irony here? google made it very public that they were interested in expanding the use of the 'web' to progress technology, now they (and everybody else) are whining about apple rejecting a native app? personally im glad this app got rejected if only for the simple fact it should teach anybody a lesson about publicly slamming a potential partner. i honestly feel that any application google makes for anything now is perversely hypocritical. just my thought...

But, this app depends on the "web" for its function. Regardless of it being a native app (and it has to be on the iPhone due to the current technological limitations of the iPhone), it is completely useless without being connected to a network/Internet. So, I really don't see how this is hypocritical.

 

[Malfoy]

But, this app depends on the "web" for its function. Regardless of it being a native app (and it has to be on the iPhone due to the current technological limitations of the iPhone), it is completely useless without being connected to a network/Internet. So, I really don't see how this is hypocritical.

It's not. Don't worry about that other guy. 🙂

 

[Mahler12x]

For the love of Christ, when will the Soviet Commissars at the FCC be forced onto the streets to find real jobs?! This laughable "watchdog" organization is nothing more than a protectorate of favored corporate interests over non-favored by use of the government gun.

The only organization that can maintain a monopoly or trust for any significant period of time is none other than the government itself. USPS, Amtrak, all radio and television frequencies, water, roads, power, etc are all owned and operated by the State.

"Anti-competitive..." LAUGHABLE!! Is not putting tariffs on foreign imports to ensure we pay higher prices in order to "protect" American corporations anti-competitive?

 

[haulis]

Why?

Why is it that AT&T Virtual Receptionist gets to remain in the app store?
This app basically does the same thing. Pretty interesting considering question #7 from the FCC to AT&T.

"Please list the services/applications that AT&T provides for the iPhone,
and whether there any similar, competing iPhone applications offered by
other providers in Apple’s App Store."

Granted this app is developed by ringcentral and I am not sure if there is any affiliation but it is still interesting.

http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=305465217&mt=8

 

[heisetax]

The App Store Only

But the fanboys said Apple can do what they like on their own app store! This isnt fair. 🙁

Does this mean they would blindly lie to make themselves feel good? 🙁

If we could easily purchase apps from vendors other than the iTunes App store for our iPhones & iPod Touches, then I would go along with Apple having control of what products are there. But when Apple has a forced monopoly for the software apps on the iPhone & iPod Touch then Apple can eliminate competition or just eliminate a program for no good reason just to show who has the power.

This absolute power that Aple has over software on the iPhone & iPod Touch is the single most important thing that keeps me from purchasing the iPod Touch. The iPhone only being able to be used on AT&T becomes an almost equal negative point for the iPhone.

The purchaser of software needs to have choice in where we opurchase our software. How can we get this back from Apple in this area???

 

[FelixDerKater]

Apple should have no part in deciding what applications can and cannot be run on the iPhone.

I believe Apple is acting out of fear, because they know that the coming variety of Android phones is going to do to the iPhone what the IBM/Windows PC did to the Macintosh in the earlier days.

 

[heisetax]

Jail breaking & the iPod Touch

...........just jailbreak the phone🙄

Can the same thing be done to an iPod Touch?

 

[jaison13]

banning exclusivity not great idea!!

so everyone wants the gov to end exclusivity?? you know why att gets exclusivity? because they subsidize the iphone. if the gov does ban this practice what will happen with these subsidies? do you wanna pay $599 and $699 for a phone?? i guess the only good side would be that the plans could be more competitive? but then would apple have to build 10 different iphones for each wireless company because each use different chips? some don't have 3g some have 4g?? it could be just as messy.

lots of other companies do exclusive contracts too. cars getting stereo companies, certain products only at certain stores, directv getting nfl sunday ticket. do we break all those too?? why can't companies do what the want with their products?? it's apples phone, it's apples store. i i want my local store to sell my kill muslims, kkk, there is no god, or any other inflammatory thing should they have too? not that i have any of those things, just making a point.

this is ridiculous! crap like this almost makes me wanna be a republican, well maybe i won't go that far.

 

[DotComCTO]

Here are the actual letters as PDFs. The one to ATT is especially interesting, since they ask if rejected apps are allowed on other phones. Oops.

Letter to Apple

Letter to AT&T

Letter to Google

Just read the letter to AT&T. Wow. And these guys will have to comply with the FCC request (unless they want a subpoena for the information and get even more bad press for failing to comply). I would not like to receive a letter like that.

Interestingly, it seems like they can ask for *certain* information to be maintained in confidence, but no one will be permitted to have "blanket" confidentiality. I can't wait to hear the summary of the reply. I'd figure we'll hear something in late-September (since the document delivery date is 8/21, and I'm sure all parties will wait a while).

😎

--DotComCTO

 

[dam0dred]

Great news. I hope Apple takes a massive PR hit over this. The more pressure they get, the more likely it is they will reform App Store policies.

If this is actually all AT&T's fault, then it will encourage Apple to ditch their exclusivity with them.

Either way, this is 100% a good thing.

 

[DotComCTO]

so everyone wants the gov to end exclusivity?? you know why att gets exclusivity? because they subsidize the iphone. if the gov does ban this practice what will happen with these subsidies? do you wanna pay $599 and $699 for a phone??

I disagree with that assumption. These companies can still subsidize the phone just to keep you on their network (the underlying cellular technology is different, right?).

--DotComCTO

 

[dam0dred]

am i the only one who sees some irony here? google made it very public that they were interested in expanding the use of the 'web' to progress technology, now they (and everybody else) are whining about apple rejecting a native app? personally im glad this app got rejected if only for the simple fact it should teach anybody a lesson about publicly slamming a potential partner. i honestly feel that any application google makes for anything now is perversely hypocritical. just my thought...

They said the future of development will be via the web not app stores. The future. Web technology is not where it needs to be yet for that to happen. I'm certainly no fan of Google, but only the most hardcore fanboy could have seen that comment as a slight against Apple.

 

[Anuba]

so everyone wants the gov to end exclusivity?? you know why att gets exclusivity? because they subsidize the iphone. if the gov does ban this practice what will happen with these subsidies? do you wanna pay $599 and $699 for a phone?

Err... what? Why on earth would it end subsidies? In Sweden, TeliaSonera's iPhone exclusivity was ended this week when two more carries (Tre and Telenor) started selling iPhones. They all subsidize the phones, naturally, but the prices dropped radically once the competition was officially on. TeliaSonera will have to respond by dropping their prices too. It works exactly as it should work in the kind of economy that Republicans such as yourself advocate, but obviously it works better in what you would refer to as a 'socialist' country than it does in the United States.

That's because were pushing the limits of age of viability. In the US, babies are being delivered (and in a lot of cases, dying) that would never have a sniff of a chance in other countries. This includes premies as well as high-risk infants born to mothers of advanced maternal age.

Err... you know, we can take care of such babies in other countries as well, and mothers of advanced age couldn't possibly account for the large discrepancy in infant deaths between, say, the US and Sweden (7 per 1000 vs. 2.8). You might wanna look at the other end of the age spectrum too, since the US has teenage pregnancy numbers in the same ballpark as third world countries in Africa and such.

At the top of the list (the smallest number of teen pregnancies per 1000) you find most of the industralized western world, with numbers ranging between 3 and 10 (Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Luxembourg, Italy, Finland, France, Greece etc). Near the bottom of the list you find dirt poor Eastern European Borat-type countries, South American countries, African countries, India and the US. I find it highly ironic that the Netherlands has 4/1000 while the US has 53/1000, given that the US excels in preaching abstinance while the Netherlands is a very liberal and loose country where wardrobe malfunctions don't raise eyebrows, but... see, kids will try sex no matter what you preach (Hi, the Palins), but if you make it into this big shameful kind of thing they'll be too embarrassed and ashamed to acquire contraceptives.

Hmm. I think this is slightly off-topic.

 

[str1f3]

The only organization that can maintain a monopoly or trust for any significant period of time is none other than the government itself. USPS, Amtrak, all radio and television frequencies, water, roads, power, etc are all owned and operated by the State.

Yes, which we own. I don't want necessary products being solely owned by privately held companies. They have a tendency to cut corners against the best interests of the people. The gov't is not some conglomerate. They are supposed to be there to represent your interests. Look at what Apple and AT&T are doing. Do you really want these kind of companies controlling your water, food, mail, & communication?

"Anti-competitive..." LAUGHABLE!! Is not putting tariffs on foreign imports to ensure we pay higher prices in order to "protect" American corporations anti-competitive?

Yes it is anti-competitive...against other countries. These other countries have those same rules. The FCC is supposed to be there to protect American consumers' rights. We pay higher prices so we can force Americans to buy products made here. If we didn't have those rules in place 70% of the country would be out of a job. Also, do you have a problem with paying taxes with an $8 trillion debt?

 

[nkawtg72]

i can't believe the number of ignorant people on this forum, as well as others. every time a headline like this comes out, lately it has turned into a discussion of free markets, monopolies, anti-trust, unfair business practices, blah blah blah blah blah.

oh and don't forget the every popular, disjointed analogies to try and prove ones opinion being more right than someone else's (i'm guilty of that one too).

i'll attempt on this occasion to refrain from an analogy and instead ask two "what if" questions.

WHAT IF Apple had never designed and built an iPhone? or here's another: WHAT IF Apple had never developed the iPhone OS to support the purchasing and installation of applications?

would ANY government or entity have had the "right" or power to step in and tell Apple they had to make a phone, or had to allow apps on the phone?

would Apple have been accused of all these same improprieties because they weren't providing a platform or marketplace for competitors to distribute their own intellectual property? i think not.

i will concede that a Google Voice app should be allowed to be installed on an iPhone an run as long as it's using WiFi and not AT&Ts data networks. so i am curious as to how this investigation will turn out with regards to that.

not that Apple would ever do this, but one last WHAT IF. WHAT IF Apple were to get tired of all the bs, and complaints, and investigations, and decide to get out of the market and stop producing iPhones, and shut down the App store, and quite providing software updates for existing devices? where would all be then?

we'd be in the same place we've been the whole time (before and after they made the iPhone). we'd be in a market were any entity is FREE to make their own device that does wonderful things to make the lives of consumers better in their never ending quest to buy more stuff.

personally i dont think Apple cares if there is a Google Voice app. i think itll be shown that it was a result of ATT input, pressure, etc. apple will eventually have to allow the app.

in a case like that, i go back to what i said before about WiFi only access for such apps, but the iPhone is NOT ATT's intellectual property and therefore should not be able to dictate who gets to use it and not use it. their data network however is their property, and they should be allowed to dictate what can and cannot be done on it.

take that one step further, the iPhone is Apple's intellectual property and they should be allowed to decide when and where it gets distributed. ie exclusivity contracts. maybe they are the greatest things in the world for everyone, and maybe Apple doesn't like the idea of them a whole lot either. but if they didn't think they were necessary for the purpose of meeting certain corporate goals, then they wouldnt be entering into them.

it's a shame i said i wouldnt use analogies in my post today, because i had a great one about toilets and me being able to force you to have a Kohler toilet installed next to every American Standard toilet in each of the bathrooms in your home when i visit, because i have the right to choose where i want to do my business 🙂

 

[nkawtg72]

..... Also, do you have a problem with paying taxes with an $8 trillion debt?

yes

 

[Oletros]

That's because were pushing the limits of age of viability

Exactly the same ocurs in all the Western countries and they don't have so high percentages

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

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.

I'm normally very pro free market. The problem with the cell phone market though is it is not free to begin with because the signal spectrum is only so large. If I could go out and start building cell towers today I would agree with you. Problem is that I can't do that. Part of the deal that the cell phone companies agreed too when buying/leasing parts of the spectrum is that they would be governed by the FCC.

 

[nkawtg72]

Apple should have no part in deciding what applications can and cannot be run on the iPhone.

I believe Apple is acting out of fear, because they know that the coming variety of Android phones is going to do to the iPhone what the IBM/Windows PC did to the Macintosh in the earlier days.

you can't possibly believe this?!

 

[Oletros]

so everyone wants the gov to end exclusivity?? you know why att gets exclusivity? because they subsidize the iphone

In Italy is sold by Vodafone, TIM and 3GH and it's subsidized. Also you can buy with pay as you go cards.

In the two cases it's unlocked. Many Spanish people pay 700 € ($1000 moreless) for one of those to not go through Telefonica.

 

[Anuba]

i'll attempt on this occasion to refrain from an analogy and instead ask two "what if" questions.

WHAT IF Apple had never designed and built an iPhone? or here's another: WHAT IF Apple had never developed the iPhone OS to support the purchasing and installation of applications?

would ANY government or entity have had the "right" or power to step in and tell Apple they had to make a phone, or had to allow apps on the phone?

Not following your train of thought at all. You're saying that because there's a hypothetical, alternate universe where Apple never created the iPhone, everyone should just breathe a sigh of relief and the FCC should just back off because in the alternate universe, the iPhone doesn't exist so they're not allowed to scrutinize Apple's and ATT's actions in this universe?

You could put "what if" in front of anything, it's rather pointless really. The iPhone does exist and the FCC is entitled to do whatever the hell is within their power.

 

[nkawtg72]

if the government is going to step in and say that Apple or any company should HAVE TO provide something, then as a Mac user, i look forward to all those companies, that over the years have provided software ONLY to PCs with NO mac version, being forced to make Mac versions of ALL their intellectual property.

 

[nagromme]

I hope AT&T is found to be on the wrong side of the law here--and I hope Apple gets in trouble too. Apple can then point to this incident as a strong example the next time a carrier is putting dubious stipulations in their agreements re the iPhone.

And if nobody's on the wrong side of the law--at least investigate the details and find that out.

(I do think it sounds reasonable for AT&T to require that voice apps not use their network, and instead be WiFi-only.)