But you're not arguing for Apple to improve it's products. You are alleging criminal behavior on Apple's part. How can you be the customer of a company you consider a criminal entity? And by the way, anyone who lists all the technology crap they use and somehow think people will consider them an expert or a "tekkie" has other problems besides irrational thought processes. Apple has now responded to Google's assertions by denying them. You have chosen to believe Google in this matter. You have not explained why you made this decision yet.
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.
Google Claims That Apple Did Reject Google Voice iPhone Application
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But you're not arguing for Apple to improve it's products. You are alleging criminal behavior on Apple's part. How can you be the customer of a company you consider a criminal entity? And by the way, anyone who lists all the technology crap they use and somehow think people will consider them an expert or a "tekkie" has other problems besides irrational thought processes. Apple has now responded to Google's assertions by denying them. You have chosen to believe Google in this matter. You have not explained why you made this decision yet.
Not in the Macrumors forums buddy. It's all about "mine is bigger than yours" and "I'm important because I have all this stuff". This is not a troubleshooting site. It's a rumor, gossip, rant, rave, expound, pound your chest, look at me site.
Please show me where I alleged criminal behaviour on Apple's part. I have never said that at all in this discussion. I'm unaware of the law in the US but I have no reason to suspect this is a criminal matter, and never once even suggested it. Please stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.
The ONLY argument I have made all along is that it is in the interests of users to have more OPTIONS when it comes to what they do with their own machines, and that Apple should not (if they are looking after their users interests, nothing to do with legality) be actively preventing users from installing apps on their machines that that particular user finds useful.
I've addressed your apparently deep problem with people's signatures in a different post.
Errr... it is indeed a troubleshooting site. Perhaps you're confused because you're in the MacRumors News discussion sub-forum, whose purpose is defined as "comments, corrections, opinion on macrumors articles"
If you go over to the hardware or software forums on this site you'll find a wealth of useful information, advice and experience given freely and generously by the users of this site to help out other users who are having technical problems with their machines.
I really don't understand what your problem about signatures is. I list my machines because it's useful for others to know what hardware I'm using when I post in the troubleshooting forums, as I suspect is the case for most people here.
Will you please stop mis-quoting me? Where did I say I believed Google in this matter? I don't have to explain this decision because I never made this decision.
I've heard that a couple times now. And that makes the most sense, but Apple wouldn't need to "reject" the app for At&t. At&t could, but still isn't GV on other mobile networks, something tells me Android has to have it.
Its a shame really, the iPhone just gets better with this kind of competition. I'm still awaiting the reasons why this is still be reviewed (rejected), the only one that would make sense would be free minutes on At&t's contract. The whole duplicating features argument is lame, plenty of apps duplicate features, few do so in a way that's better than Apple's default.
I'm not sure why you guys are still arguing about this. AT&T looked at GV and looked at their upcoming A-List feature and went crazy. People are not stupid and AT&T doesn't want to lose the revenue. Pretty basic really.
I don't think GV will ever get back on the iPhone unless it is forced by the FCC, or Apple does it against AT&T wishes (not likely while they still have the exclusive contract that gives kickbacks to Apple).
I don't think GV will ever get back on the iPhone unless it is forced by the FCC, or Apple does it against AT&T wishes (not likely while they still have the exclusive contract that gives kickbacks to Apple).
Parking Lot...
Yep I'm letting you have a spot but now you've over stayed your welcome. Now p... Off. As for FCC , I could not give a rats arse what they think or anyone else for that matter. This is business I don't want duplicate process/functions. I want a device that works. I feel I have a deal that suits
me and I feel no reason to have an alternative voice app. I could not care if Apple lied or it was someone else. I bought an iPhone and I'm happy with it. Those that are complaining as if they have had their civil liberties affronted maybe want to consider moving to may Windows mobile and enjoy downloading any old crap. I like the tight integration I like the screening of apps. I would like to see a robust screening process of apps but for now it suits me fine. Adios for now
Yep I'm letting you have a spot but now you've over stayed your welcome. Now p... Off. As for FCC , I could not give a rats arse what they think or anyone else for that matter. This is business I don't want duplicate process/functions. I want a device that works. I feel I have a deal that suits
me and I feel no reason to have an alternative voice app. I could not care if Apple lied or it was someone else. I bought an iPhone and I'm happy with it. Those that are complaining as if they have had their civil liberties affronted maybe want to consider moving to may Windows mobile and enjoy downloading any old crap. I like the tight integration I like the screening of apps. I would like to see a robust screening process of apps but for now it suits me fine. Adios for now
So according to you, Apple lied when it said that AT&T had not forced them to reject Google voice?
Someone brought up Apple didnt like google taking names and selling to Market Research. Couldn't they have used that as a reason why it was rejected, not some BS excuse like duplicate features. Speaking of duplicate features I downloaded 2 calculator apps.
Maybe resubmit the app, after the real details are revealed as to its being rejected, just make some corrections or changes....
Maybe resubmit the app, after the real details are revealed as to its being rejected, just make some corrections or changes....
The app was rejected because it duplicated phone functionalities. If they changed the app and resubmitted it the app would be useless. What would it do without phone features?
It comes down to this:
User A: I have an iphone and really like everything it does, it suits me personally, and I have no need for further functionality.
User B: I also have an iphone and really like everything it does. But I also would like not to be prevented from installing some software that would make the product much more useful for me, which is completely optional to install, and which would in no way alter or affect the way User A uses his iphone.
User A: User B must be prevented from doing this, he doesn't need this, he should be happy with the functionality he has.
I just don't get this rationale.
User A: I have an iphone and really like everything it does, it suits me personally, and I have no need for further functionality.
User B: I also have an iphone and really like everything it does. But I also would like not to be prevented from installing some software that would make the product much more useful for me, which is completely optional to install, and which would in no way alter or affect the way User A uses his iphone.
User A: User B must be prevented from doing this, he doesn't need this, he should be happy with the functionality he has.
I just don't get this rationale.
Absolutely! There is big big money at stake. If you know how GV works, all you have to do is add your GV number to your a-list and unlimited minutes is yours. With everything being equal it's the simplest, move obvious answer.
What GV will end up doing to the companies who do the '5-10 free number thing' is force them to offer unlimited calling minutes for all numbers at a lower price. IMHO, this is a good thing, but one the cell companies will fight tooth and nail.
That's not really what User A is saying.
It's what Apple is saying, and really, their TOS, which at the outset is perfectly reasonable. If you're looking for the "duplication" argument, it's certainly there, too.
User A is just pointing it out.
Thats because it's the wrong rationale. Your second statement from person A is simply incorrect. What person A should say: The iPhone was never presented as an open device that can do whatever you would like and it is your responsibility to know that up front.
Trying to lead people down the garden path is a common logical fallacy. Your scenario doesn't make sense to you because your interpretation is flawed. Nobody is saying that they do not need Google voice. We are simply saying that such a service should not be implied to exist or be alloyed on the iPhone as talked about 2 years ago when the App store was unveiled.
It is what Apple is saying, you're right about that.
As is the third line of my previous post
But it's also what many of the posters here are saying, and it's them I was addressing.
I understand, sort of, though I disagree with it, why Apple says that.
What I don't understand is why User A argues that User B should be prevented from installing an app on his machine, that would in no way affect User A.
I couldn't care less what someone else does with their machine, why would other people care so much what I do with mine, if it doesn't affect them in any way. Live and let live, so to speak.
Some people have been saying that, which is a somewhat stronger argument at least, I agree. Others have pretty much been saying it as I wrote.
I'm not trying to mislead anyone, if that was the way it seemed, I'm sorry. Whether Google Voice fulfils how the iPhone and/or AppStore was presented is one thing, and whether it truly falls foul of the appstore exceptions, I don't know, nor do I really care. All I have argued all along has been how I think things could be bettered, including that the device should be more open. If that requires changes in the way things are done with the appstore and existing iphone software, then so be it.
+1, Insightful
It's thinking like this that causes 90% of the world to get mired in Internet Explorer for five years.
Google Voice is already available on Android and Blackberry. It already works on At&t through the website. I pretty sure T-Mobile has the free unlimited to a group of people thing going...and its up and running on the G-1 and other android phones (app based) and web based for other mobiles. If this was truly a huge problem then they could just block the website like they did with 4chan, and we all know how that went.
This is something that those phone companies will have to deal with...and I am betting that the majority of iPhone users won't even use or download GV (at least until you can port over your mobile number).
If they are saying that, then they are probably wrong. People say lots of things on these forums, especially when the topic is a heated one.
On the contrary, I am not saying that you are misleading anyone, I measrly said, you were not applying a very logical route - your premise was flawed and therefore confusing to you. I am not claiming any intent.
Neither do I. I never plan on using Google voice. As I said before, until the FCC says otherwise this is a matter between Google and Apple.
It could be done that way. However that may not be how things work out. What Apple is doing is perfectly lawful as things stand. Sure it may not be fair for certain parties, but I don't see things being that way for everyone (someone at some point won't be happy with whatever the status quo is!).
I am actually happy that the FCC is looking into things here. I may not use Google voice as a service, but I am not a fan of how the telecommunications industry wants to control the web browser and the internet. Is thats whats going on here? We don't yet know.
Well, good job apple. I thank google for putting it out there in the open. I want the confirmation tht Apple went to AT&T first though.
It gets better than just this GV debate...
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/18/fcc-to-propose-new-net-neutrality-rule-disallowing-data-discrimi/
Its good to see the FCC in action against this type of stuff.