Google Claims That Apple Did Reject Google Voice iPhone Application

[movieator]

Not that I agree with Apple if they indeed reject the application, doesn't Google seem to be spreading themselves a bit thin? Either that or creating a somewhat completely core environment of their own?
Google Voice, Google Latitude, Chrome, Google OS, Android, etc. I think one problem Google is running into with Apple is trying to compete on their level.
Now, I'm not saying Apple is better than Google or vice versa, but Google seems to be traispsing into almost every communications market this last year.
So, in doing so, they are coming up against issues and competition that they couldn't really forsee.
"Google search on the iPhone and Safari, fine. Chrome on a Mac, sure. Google Maps on the iPhone, no problem. Google Voice? Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold on, junior. Now you're out of your element here. Who do you think you are?"

Now, at the end of the day, I think AT&T had a huge hand in the rejection (or pending rejection) of the GV app on the iPhone.

I just find it odd that some are complaining that Apple is a borderline monopoly, but at the same time, it seems like Google is trying to to become the same, or at least a one-stop shop for all things communication. I mean this is the same thing that MS tried to do, and it bit them in the butt, and the same thing Apple seems to be doing, and it might very well bite them in the tuckus as well.
I just don't know why Google would want to try and travel down a road already littered with corpses.
So to speak.

If I am wrong, or off the mark, I am willing to be corrected as I don't anywhere near claim to be an expert.

 

[me-mac]

I used the App, it's not that great that it would move even a substantial amount of users IF it moved 100 that would be amazing. Apple is confident enough is it's design an functionality of OSX that Boot Camp comes standard on all Macs so you can run Windows on your Mac. Last I checked, Microsoft was Apple's biggest threat. So explain that decision then, an I highly doubt Google's master plan was to design a simple app with the goal to bring thousands or even millions of users to Android.

I think Google is confident that they can poach customers; as I explained in my post, once people invest into the system and reply on it, Google can take strategic steps to make it cumbersome for iPhone users and a wonderfully simple experience for Android users.

To throw the argument back, why is Google pursing this matter so rigorously?

Apple shipping bootcamp is a reverse tactic, not a show of confidence. It brings users to the Apple OS. With Microsoft OS's even I would be confident enough to write an OS that users would prefer - nothing comes close to OSX and never will. What's more, is the iPhone also brings in new users so it's experience should be an 'Apple' one and not a mixture of several different companies. I know there are a million apps from other developers out there but we are talking about a core function of the device which defines it. A bit like changing the iPod application for a Zune app. Apple rightly wants to defend and protect the experience users have with it's device.

A phone service and an OS are two very different things. One is something that you must be able to get along with, interact with easily and it's success depends on a multitude of variables and personal preferences. A phone service is like the difference between Fed Ex and whatever. One is cheaper or more reliable than the other - there's not a lot else that determines it's popularity or success. And so if users start to enjoy or prefer the Google Voice experience over the AT&T/Apple experience, it puts Apple in somewhat vulnerable situation.

Besides which, even if users do not move to Android and stick with their iPhones, who's making money? AT&T loses some, Apple won't pick up new customers based on that app alone. Google wants the world to use it's system not matter what platform. Money changes hands between Apple and AT&T and both parties do well out of it I imagine. Enter Google which climbs through an open back door and takes all the cash.

 

[cumanzor]

Enter Google which climbs through an open back door and takes all the cash.

I don't think Google actually employs this kind of tactics. But whow am I to be sure honestly.

I guess it is just a matter of principle. I cannot see how Apple behavior's regarding this is not anti-competitive. Google has every reason to be pissed off, they are losing a huge chunk of potential users due to this.

 

[me-mac]

I don't think Google actually employs this kind of tactics. But whow am I to be sure honestly.

I guess it is just a matter of principle. I cannot see how Apple behavior's regarding this is not anti-competitive. Google has every reason to be pissed off, they are losing a huge chunk of potential users due to this.

It's not a matter of employing tactics; It's a reality if enough users use GV on an iPhone. If the app makes it to the phone, AT&T and Apple should see some of the action. If it was some bedroom developer making millions of dollars with this open back door, that would put a blip on the radar.

Being 'anti-competitive' is competing. Google's backdoor approach would be just piggy-backing on others' ingenuity, successes and infrastructure rather than 'competing' head on. Let them make Android as compelling an experience as the iPhone then I'll shut up.

You don't see Xbox and Sony allowing each other to meddle with their core experiences. 3rd party companies develop applications that run on their machines, not replace their core experiences and values. Those experiences are what make them unique and gain or lose customers, and customer loyalty accordingly. They are strictly protected and rightly so.

Thus far, there are no rules or laws that state a developer must continue to support and application that has been approved for the iPhone. If Google Voice was pulled by Google or as I said before, strategically downgraded when thousands of users depended on it, it would put a dent in Apples brand.

 

[bozzykid]

while uploading the users contacts' details to some server somewhere is another thing.

The app never did that according to all reports I have read. It's just FUD spread by Apple fanboys to provide an excuse for it's rejection. The contact syncing was only one direction (downloaded from your GMail contacts).

 

[kate-willbury]

It's not a matter of employing tactics; It's a reality if enough users use GV on an iPhone. If the app makes it to the phone, AT&T and Apple should see some of the action. If it was some bedroom developer making millions of dollars with this open back door, that would put a blip on the radar.

Being 'anti-competitive' is competing. Google's backdoor approach would be just piggy-backing on others' ingenuity, successes and infrastructure rather than 'competing' head on. Let them make Android as compelling an experience as the iPhone then I'll shut up.

You don't see Xbox and Sony allowing each other to meddle with their core experiences. 3rd party companies develop applications that run on their machines, not replace their core experiences and values. Those experiences are what make them unique and gain or lose customers, and customer loyalty accordingly. They are strictly protected and rightly so.

Thus far, there are no rules or laws that state a developer must continue to support and application that has been approved for the iPhone. If Google Voice was pulled by Google or as I said before, strategically downgraded when thousands of users depended on it, it would put a dent in Apples brand.

is this a joke or do you actually blather nonsensical junk all of the time? how exactly would GV 'take over' the iphone 'core experience'? do you even know what google voice is? you NEED an actual phone number to even use google voice. so how exactly would AT&T lose out on customers?

 

[hanpa]

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.

I'm surprised of the number of User A type in this forum. They're probably Apple employees since this logic is otherwise very hard to understand.

 

[kgraf6]

An who are you to be saying I shouldn't be using Apple's products, you stay under Steve Jobs desk, but I'm bustin out. That's why I am a % point in the 8.4% that have Jailbroken their iPhones.

The Chinese goverment is shipping all new PC's with internet tracking software that blocks porn and Anti Communist web traffic. What's next? Apple blocking anything Microsoft related, or perhaps Steve doesn't like porn, and we can no longer take 5 minutes with a box of kleenex to the bathroom with our phones.

Keep swinging from Steve's nuts and telling yourself you don't mind paying for something and owning it, but being told you can't do this, or that.

Ok, I suppose I'll cop that.

Look, all I am trying to say is that you are asking a company that has operated fundamentally the same from its inception, to now change.

You of all people (having jailbroken your iPhone) should know by now how Apple chooses to keep their platform closed and under their control.

I retract my original statement, you have every right to use Apple products; just stop your whinging. You obviously already know how to install unapproved software and customize your mac, so I really don't see what point you are making.

If you've come to the conclusion that I am an Apple fanboy then you are hugely mistaken, considering I use multiple other platforms including Google products. I am simply trying to say that everyone on this forum knows this is the way Apple does things. What is the point in whinging about it?

 

[cumanzor]

Being 'anti-competitive' is competing

Hmm, I disagree. If this was the case then we wouldn't have any problem with whatever Microsoft did back then.

You have to protect your stuff, I agree, but what Apple is doing here is limiting the choice of the customer. The way I see it would like if Microsoft suddenly decided that only IE can be used on Windows, or Apple decides that only Safari can be used on OS X.

 

[kgraf6]

Hmm, I disagree. If this was the case then we wouldn't have any problem with whatever Microsoft did back then.

You have to protect your stuff, I agree, but what Apple is doing here is limiting the choice of the customer. The way I see it would like if Microsoft suddenly decided that only IE can be used on Windows, or Apple decides that only Safari can be used on OS X.

Or like Apple restricting Mac OS X from running on anything other that Apple hardware?

Restricting users' choices is the way Apple always have and will continue to run their business.

Rejecting the Google Voice app should not be a surprise to anyone.

 

[Michael CM1]

Even though I can't understand your reply because it reads like a dyslexic person wrote it, I will still try to respond.

I'm talking about Apple, hindering my ability to try Google's software.
Let's say 1 person out of the 23 Million who own an iPhone, tried Google Voice an decided to buy an android phone. Point.

Had Apple designed a GPS app that shipped with the iPhone, we wouldn't see a google GPS or TOMTOM.

That's about as ultimate as the point gets. I don't know what all the FCC rules are, but I doubt there's one that says "you must allow your competitors to put stuff on your stuff." Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

It's things like this that have me increasingly worried about Google. Yes, they have a very good search engine. But it seems like there's some new app that Google throws out there every day, and I think they're all FREE. Where exactly is all the income coming from that allows Google to do this? If it's all coming in from Web search, isn't Google violating antitrust laws?

I just read a kinda hilarious viewpoint piece from PC World about how VoIP will replace regular calling plans. Why? Because he said so. Seriously, he gave no reason other than saying because it can be done. The problem with this is the bandwidth deluge. Regular voice calls on a landline are about 4kbps. I'm betting that most VoIP calls are at least 64k, if not 128k. That's an insane amount of extra bandwidth. This doesn't even address the fact that 3G is hardly everywhere.

I just hope someone starts investigating Google because they're starting to get too big for their britches. At least Microsoft built it's dominance by actually charging people for stuff. I have yet to give Google a single cent, but somehow that company puts stuff everywhere. That frightens the heck outta me.

 

[crusadernm]

Apple, for shame.

 

[hanpa]

it would be one thing if apple clearly defined what was and was not allowed...but repeatedly that seems to not be the case

why put thousands of $ into development of an app and then have it rejected? Apple is essentially squashing any creativity and limiting the quality of apps b\c any break in the status quo risks a rejected app.

I agree. And new apps are likely to contain less features that possible due to the risk of beeing rejected. I'm considering registering as a developer but have serious doubts regarding spending a lot of time on an app without understanding how Apple will handle the approval. This leads to the following for the App Store:

1. Many great apps are never written
2. Many potentially great apps are crippled even at first attempt just to reduce the risk of being rejected
3. Many great apps are crippled by Apple/AT&T (due to the "non-agreement") to pass the approval process, e.g. Wi-Fi only for some features despite the fact that this is not motivated outside of the US
4. Apps are updated in several stages to add feautures after the first "low-risk" approval. And since the approval already takes very long time, the problem gets even worse by

The Android process is much better. And yes, the users are smart enough to understand the risk of installing an app that has not been checked in detail before being available in the store. Automated checks for safety related issues like on the Android seems to be good enough in combination with at clear statement regarding what is allowed and not.

And regarding the "non-agreement" between Apple and AT&T. AT&T must design their network to handle all traffic that the users can create or regulate this according to their plans with their customer. I actually don't believe this talk about risk of congestion since the network should already handle this and if not, this problem can be handled by software upgrades in the GSM nodes. I think the real reason is just that AT&T don't want competition related to voice calls and SMS but refers to network congestion instead. And Apple plays along because of the "non-agreement".

That's about as ultimate as the point gets. I don't know what all the FCC rules are, but I doubt there's one that says "you must allow your competitors to put stuff on your stuff." Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

It's things like this that have me increasingly worried about Google. Yes, they have a very good search engine. But it seems like there's some new app that Google throws out there every day, and I think they're all FREE. Where exactly is all the income coming from that allows Google to do this? If it's all coming in from Web search, isn't Google violating antitrust laws?

I just read a kinda hilarious viewpoint piece from PC World about how VoIP will replace regular calling plans. Why? Because he said so. Seriously, he gave no reason other than saying because it can be done. The problem with this is the bandwidth deluge. Regular voice calls on a landline are about 4kbps. I'm betting that most VoIP calls are at least 64k, if not 128k. That's an insane amount of extra bandwidth. This doesn't even address the fact that 3G is hardly everywhere.

I just hope someone starts investigating Google because they're starting to get too big for their britches. At least Microsoft built it's dominance by actually charging people for stuff. I have yet to give Google a single cent, but somehow that company puts stuff everywhere. That frightens the heck outta me.

The bandwidth for VoIP calls is so low when compared to all other traffic. 3G cellular is available in most countries, the US seems to be an exception. Spotify uses 160 kbit/s here in Sweden, no problems whatsoever to use that on 3G and VoIP requires less than that. I have about 2-3 Mbit/s effective download rate on both Wi-Fi and 3G cellular. The network can handle this and my plan allows me to use it without restrictions whatsoever (including VoIP). I actually don't use my iPhone as a phone at all but I might if VoIP was allowed on 3G cellular. If I really need Skype calls on 3G, I'll definitely jailbreak my device but I'd prefer not to.

 

[seedster2]

the usual "apologists" have a point...

Despite their devotion in defending anything apple, they do have a point.

If you are fed up with some of these ridiculous iPhone policies, complain all you want but switch the platform and/or vote with your wallet. The same objectors will still go out and buy the next iPhone despite Apple's actions. Apple and telcos are greedy. hit em where it hurts. I went back to BB. The only limitation is youre contracted so leaving may not be so easy

I have no doubt in my mind that both ATT/Apple have some collusive agreement to reject applications. I am happy the government is intervening to hopefully penalize them. You can do what you want to your store, but you can't partner with a telecom to make those rejections and then give a bogus explanation

iPhone's dominance is likely short-lived. No one stays on top forever. Upon initial launch many didnt buy because of the crazy costs. Now that they priced it more sensibly, we are seeing huge numbers (no kidding?) Once Palm OS and Google reach other carriers we will have more competition. Hopefully, it will put an end to the smug shortsided points about sales, developers flocking, etc. - Put more focus on giving the consumer what they want

 

[bruinsrme]

snipet
iPhone's dominance is likely short-lived. No one stays on top forever. Upon initial launch many didnt buy because of the crazy costs. Now that they priced it more sensibly, we are seeing huge numbers (no kidding?) Once Palm OS and Google reach other carriers we will have more competition. Hopefully, it will put an end to the smug shortsided points about sales, developers flocking, etc. - Put more focus on giving the consumer what they want

I agree with the life span of the iphone.
Google is experimenting at Apple's expense, which I applaud as genius.
The google phones will improve and may start attracting jailbreakers if google doesn't try to lock down the phone and if google can align itself with (in the US) verizon. Then ATT and Verizon will really be head to head with two similar functioned phones. I really don't think itunes will be an issue as someone will do something to allow itunes operability.
I think it will get interesting to see if the tight control of apple will reign over a more open platform (if google goes that route). It just might turn into a pc vs mac situation. Jus my thoughts

 

[kdarling]

I don't know what all the FCC rules are, but I doubt there's one that says "you must allow your competitors to put stuff on your stuff."

For carriers, there are such rules. That's the pain for their gain. They must sublease equipment to other businesses (virtual providers, local carriers). And allow anyone's compatible equipment on their lines.

For handset manufacturers, no. At least, not yet. If the FCC does a flip and decides that they're a major part of the ecosystem, who knows. We might see something like this for 4G.

Sixteen or so years ago, net neutrality also included allowing any compatible application to run on your network. I was the head of a major carrier lab working on a universal API. The idea was to allow any device, any app, on any network.

When another administration dropped software net neutrality, the carriers dropped all those projects like hot potatoes.

However, one good fallout of those times was the DOCSIS standard for cable boxes.

 

[j-Phone]

Being 'anti-competitive' is competing. Google's backdoor approach would be just piggy-backing on others' ingenuity, successes and infrastructure rather than 'competing' head on. Let them make Android as compelling an experience as the iPhone then I'll shut up.

Good point! I have an iPhone and I am all Mac at home, but there are things about Apple company that sucks and I hate the fact that Apple holds back features and dictates to the user what they should and should not have based on Apple's infinite wisdom to know what is best for the user. For example, people quickly forget the iPhone launched without MMS and after what 2-3 years of it's existence, we are now just seeing MMS. It was reported that Steve Jobs responded to the no MMS complaints from users and all he could say was: "But you can send pics through E-mail." Steve Jobs has a personal philosophy and core beliefs that when he believes in them, he wants you to believe in them and will MAKE YOU BELIEVE IN THEM! For example, making the new Macs without Firewire 400. Any audio, vdieo professional knows that they don't make devices that operate on Firewire 800, except for hardrives.

So I said all this to say that although I hate the philosophies of Apple, you have to respect the fact that it's their device and if Google wants to push their app, then they should make their Adroid just as innovative and special so that it totally de-thrones the iPhone. Google is way more open, but just don't have the cool factor that Apple has.

 

[occamsrazor]

For example, making the new Macs without Firewire 400. Any audio, vdieo professional knows that they don't make devices that operate on Firewire 800, except for hardrives.

Off-topic, but you do realise FW800 is backward-compatible with FW400? You just need to use a FW400>FW800 cable, and you can use any FW400 device from your Mac's FW800 port?

 

[guet]

Whining

What is the point in whinging about it?

Apple can and has changed in the past because of constructive criticism.

There's nothing wrong with saying that Apple got it wrong in this instance (and with many other app rejections), and that they should change. That doesn't make you a bad person, doesn't make anti-apple, and doesn't mean you are whining.

Sometimes Apple gets it wrong, sometimes they act with a little too much hubris and not enough humility - when they do, they need their customers to step up and tell them straight that it's unacceptable, not scrabble round for tenuous excuses to defend them, and denigrate those who would criticise them.

They should not (morally) be using their enormous power on the app store to capriciously control other companies app development - Google could have spent months and serious employee time on these apps, only to see them canned without earlier warning by a partner who relies on Google for one of their most popular apps (Maps.app). Yes they can legally, but it's both wrong, and very bad for Apple in the long term. If they want to ban Google's app, they shouldn't be surprised to see Google turn up the heat on them and disallow use of tiles in their MapView component. Perhaps Google wouldn't because of the potential customer backlash, but there are many ways their enmity can cost Apple (and us as Apple users) in the future. So this move is not even in the self-interest of Apple long term.

If they tried this sort of stuff on the desktop users would be up in arms, and rightly so.

I'd encourage everyone that feels strongly about this to send feedback to Apple letting them know (in polite terms) what you think.

 

[bjb.butler]

Am I the only one that just doesn't care? If you really need a GV app, you can just jailbreak your phone and get one.

Why does everyone seem so surprised by what Apple is doing? You knew before you bought your Mac / iPod / Apple TV / iPhone that they are a mini monopoly that likes to control your every move.

I'm all for openness, but this move by apple doesn't bother me at all. I also think that that since its public knowledge (and if it's true) that AT$T has nothing to do with the rejection, the whole FCC investigation should be closed. It's apple's hardware, it's apple's software, they have the right to approve / reject any app they don't want. You don't like it? Either:
a) Jailbreak your phone
b) get an android device

Problem solved.

The bandwidth for VoIP calls is so low when compared to all other traffic. 3G cellular is available in most countries, the US seems to be an exception.

I'm not sure if you know or not, but Google Voice does not use VoIP to make its calls, and the calls you make with GV actually count towards your monthly minute limitation. Bandwidth is not an issue here

They should not (morally) be using their enormous power on the app store to capriciously control other companies app development .

Don't bring morals into the fray when talking about others. Everyone has different morals, so just because you think they shouldn't be doing it, perhaps their morals are compelling them to do it.

Yes they can legally, but it's both wrong, and very bad for Apple in the long term. If they want to ban Google's app, they shouldn't be surprised to see Google turn up the heat on them and disallow use of tiles in their MapView component. Perhaps Google wouldn't because of the potential customer backlash, but there are many ways their enmity can cost Apple (and us as Apple users) in the future. So this move is not even in the self-interest of Apple long term.

To be frank, Apple has people with much more experience, knowledge, and skill than you do when it comes down to assessing what is best for their company both now and in the future. There are brilliant people working their both on the engineering side and on the financial side, and they know what they are doing. No company willingly does something to hurt itself in the future.

The people that are making these decisions have complete knowledge of what is going on. You on the other hand, are making outside assumptions based on information you read on the internet.

 

[hanpa]

Good point! I have an iPhone and I am all Mac at home, but there are things about Apple company that sucks and I hate the fact that Apple holds back features and dictates to the user what they should and should not have based on Apple's infinite wisdom to know what is best for the user. For example, people quickly forget the iPhone launched without MMS and after what 2-3 years of it's existence, we are now just seeing MMS. It was reported that Steve Jobs responded to the no MMS complaints from users and all he could say was: "But you can send pics through E-mail." Steve Jobs has a personal philosophy and core beliefs that when he believes in them, he wants you to believe in them and will MAKE YOU BELIEVE IN THEM!

Steve Jobs was right regarding MMS. We've had MMS in Sweden since 2002 but it's almost never used so I think only a few users would complain if MMS was removed as a service in the GSM network. And yes, pics are sent through email instead and there´s an email client in all mobile phones today.

 

[*LTD*]

Am I the only one that just doesn't care? If you really need a GV app, you can just jailbreak your phone and get one.

Why does everyone seem so surprised by what Apple is doing? You knew before you bought your Mac / iPod / Apple TV / iPhone that they are a mini monopoly that likes to control your every move.

I'm all for openness, but this move by apple doesn't bother me at all. I also think that that since its public knowledge (and if it's true) that AT$T has nothing to do with the rejection, the whole FCC investigation should be closed. It's apple's hardware, it's apple's software, they have the right to approve / reject any app they don't want. You don't like it? Either:
a) Jailbreak your phone
b) get an android device

Problem solved.

Don't bother. It's easier to cry about it for 300+ posts and several pages. This is what normally goes on at Macrumors.

 

[bjb.butler]

Steve Jobs was right regarding MMS. We've had MMS in Sweden since 2002 but it's almost never used so I think only a few users would complain if MMS was removed as a service in the GSM network. And yes, pics are sent through email instead and there´s an email client in all mobile phones today.

There may be an email client in most phones today but:
By far the largest group of people that use MMS are the younger crowd (teenagers in high school and below, maybe even some college). This is also the group that is the least likely to have a smartphone with an expensive data plan. Sending emails isn't an option for most teenagers. And even you were lucky enough to have a data plan in high school, most (if not all) of your friends didn't (believe me, I was there two years ago).

 

[slu]

Don't bother. It's easier to cry about it for 300+ posts and several pages. This is what normally goes on at Macrumors.

As opposed to you crying about people crying about it? Pot meet kettle.

Why do you continue to torture yourself and read the thread?

 

[*LTD*]

As opposed to you crying about people crying about it? Pot meet kettle.

Why do you continue to torture yourself and read the thread?

I can still comment if I want to. So can everyone else.