Google Claims That Apple Did Reject Google Voice iPhone Application

[Neotyguy40]

This is turning into one of those 'I never lie' arguments. They could either be telling the truth and they never lie, or they could be lieing and they do lie.

Either way, until this sort's itself out, I think I can live without using the changes Google has in planned.

I could see why both of them would happen:

Google: If google is lieing, they would be trying to weaken Apple as their competition when they enter the OS wars.
Apple: If Apple is lieing... Well I don't really know why Apple would lie, but they are smart and would know how to work with it.

 

[MorphingDragon]

This is just hype to promote the Android phones in the fall. No more, no less. I wouldn't be surprised of Google expected a rejection to exploit it like this.

Any publicity is good publicity. Specially for Linux devices.

 

[leRiCl]

Of course there's not. And there's nothing preventing Google putting Google apps on Mac OS X. Or Apple putting iTunes on Windows. So why all the fuss about Google putting them on the iPhone?



I don't see it's the same way at all. Google wanting to put GV on the iPhone is much like Skype wanting to put their application on Macs running OS X, which may in turn lead to decreased revenues from landline providers. No one sees a problem with that, it's up to the user, I can do whatever the hell I like with my Mac.
The difference is that the Apple who sold me my Mac aren't in bed with my landline provider and preventing me from installing Skype in order to protect my landline provider's business interests.
The Apple that sells iPhones are in bed with the telcos, and it's increasingly clear what that pact means for users.

Google isn't prevented from putting Google Voice on the iPhone. They're just rejected from being placed in the "iTunes Store". There's nothing stopping them from putting it via alternative means, such as Cydia. Except for image reasons, they won't do it.

I believe Apple has the right to decide which software is sold via the web store just as supermarkets can choose what goods can go on their shelves.

Apple is not a monopoly. It is simply a company operating in monopolistic competition. It is only in the short term that Apple might appear like a monopoly.

Meanwhile, no one says anything about Google owning both sides of the fence in terms of buying and selling ad space.

 

[KnightWRX]

Google isn't prevented from putting Google Voice on the iPhone. They're just rejected from being placed in the "iTunes Store". There's nothing stopping them from putting it via alternative means, such as Cydia. Except for image reasons, they won't do it.

The fact that jailbreaking an iPhone is a breach of the EULA ? Cydia is far from legitimate. The App store is the only legitimate distribution method for iPhone and iPod Touch applications.

 

[hanpa]

Google isn't prevented from putting Google Voice on the iPhone. They're just rejected from being placed in the "iTunes Store". There's nothing stopping them from putting it via alternative means, such as Cydia. Except for image reasons, they won't do it.

I believe Apple has the right to decide which software is sold via the web store just as supermarkets can choose what goods can go on their shelves.

Apple is not a monopoly. It is simply a company operating in monopolistic competition. It is only in the short term that Apple might appear like a monopoly.

Meanwhile, no one says anything about Google owning both sides of the fence in terms of buying and selling ad space.

Apple is a monopoly regarding the iPhone. They don't allow alternative App Stores or other means of installing apps unless you jailbreak your device. It's like buying a Mac and you can only buy and install third-pary software from www.apple.com or only from www.dell.com if you buy a Dell.

Apple's arguments regarding bad user experience or confusion after installing an app they have not approved according to their rules are just BS. I don't know the detailed capabilities of the iPhone OS but I'm sure that it's possible to set task priorities on third-party apps that doesn't cause bad user experience or stops use of the built-in apps such as Phone. And regarding user confusion, a very confusing app is likely to not be very popular so the market will take care of such issues.

I actually don't mind that Apple reviews and tests apps before being released in App Store. The problem is that apps are rejected due to functionality that threatens the monopoly (in non-agreement with AT&T). Rejection shall only be done due to safety issues such as virus or spamming, bad quality (many bugs), copyright issues etc. The Android approval process is much better but I don't mind a mix, that Apple keeps some manual checking to save the users from the worst apps. On the other hand, the current process has lead to a huge amount of burp and fart applications but has failed to approve great apps or having them crippled with 3G cellular restrictions that must be rectified by jailbreaking.

 

[guet]

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.

Please. Their reason, as stated by Schiller, is that it duplicates core functionality. That's not a moral stance, it's a disingenuous, hypocritical position which they haven't even bothered to enforce even-handedly. There are many many apps on the store which duplicate core functionality. If they have good reasons, they should tell Google and their customers what they are. As to moral relativism, I agree it is important to realise your own bias when trying to judge moral issues, but to use that as an excuse to not to address morals at all is entirely impractical. I simply used the word to distinguish between legal and moral wrong, in case somebody thought I was talking about legality.

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.

If the only customers Apple had were people like you, who appear to believe that a huge corporation will always make the right decision, we wouldn't even have an app store, we'd have web apps, and we'd like it. It is after all a 'really sweet solution', and was Apple's first choice for third party apps.

Companies hurt themselves all the time, because most large systems involving lots of people are pretty dysfunctional. Clever people also do stupid things. In Apple's case, look at firing Jobs in the first place way back when, launching the cube at a price which was too high, Copeland, etc etc. Your conclusion that a group of talented people == great decisions does not always hold true.

I'm not trying to second guess what they do all the time, and certainly don't believe I could run the company better than their team (of course not), but I do disagree with this decision, and have stated my reasons. I find them more persuasive than the hand waving and misdirection that Apple is engaging in. You may not.

 

[wshwe]

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)

If Apple didn't reject Voice and Latitude then Apple should immediately put both in the App Store. Otherwise Apple is lying.

 

[amberashby]

Apple should just approve the App. and all this negative publicity would go away. I doubt many would use the app anyway.

 

[MorphingDragon]

Apple should just approve the App. and all this negative publicity would go away. I doubt many would use the app anyway.

All publicity is good publicity. Theres just a bad overtone too it.

 

[*LTD*]

Apple should just approve the App. and all this negative publicity would go away. I doubt many would use the app anyway.

Outside Mac forums and tech sites, barely anyone noticed. And of those that did, even fewer cared. I'm not sure Apple is in any rush to quash what doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[occamsrazor]

Outside Mac forums and tech sites, barely anyone noticed. And of those that did, even fewer cared. I'm not sure Apple is in any rush to quash what doesn't exist in the first place.

Yeah, sure, a search for "google voice app reject" only brings up 1.5 million hits, and the story has now crossed over from Tech sites to the mainstream media such NYTimes etc..... I'm not saying it's on the tip of the tongue of the world's population, but to say "barely anyone noticed" when it's patently false, is a bit silly.

 

[w0ngbr4d]

Apple is a monopoly regarding the iPhone.

All companies have an implied monopoly on their own products.

Apple is the only company who can make an iPhone, BMW is the only automaker that can make BMWs, Sony is the only company that can make the PS3.

A product isn't a market. A monopoly is a company who dominates a market. A monopoly itself isn't inherently illegal. It becomes illegal when that company uses its market position to prevent or disrupt competition in that market.

The relevant market is smart phones/cell phones. I don't believe that Apple has a monopoly in those markets yet.

 

[sjo]

All companies have an implied monopoly on their own products.

Apple is the only company who can make an iPhone, BMW is the only automaker that can make BMWs, Sony is the only company that can make the PS3.

A product isn't a market. A monopoly is a company who dominates a market. A monopoly itself isn't inherently illegal. It becomes illegal when that company uses its market position to prevent or disrupt competition in that market.

The relevant market is smart phones/cell phones. I don't believe that Apple has a monopoly in those markets yet.

iphone applications is a market, app store is a marketplace for those products. it's the only market place for those products. apple themselves are citing their rule that duplicating functionality is ground for rejection of application from the app store. how exactly is that not a company using its market position to prevent competition? as far as i can see, that's pretty much the definition of illegal monopolistic behaviour.

 

[hanpa]

iphone applications is a market, app store is a marketplace for those products. it's the only market place for those products. apple themselves are citing their rule that duplicating functionality is ground for rejection of application from the app store. how exactly is that not a company using its market position to prevent competition? as far as i can see, that's pretty much the definition of illegal monopolistic behaviour.

Yes. If the iPhone was just an old-fashioned phone with a few built-in applications, the comparison with BMW would apply. But a BMW does not offer a platform for executing general-purpuse applications. It's not the computer platform on the iPhone or on the iPod Touch that prevents great apps from being released, it's indeed Apple's monopolistic behavior. Don't know if this is against the law but it's a an enormous amount of badwill for Apple. Hard to tell but I think that Apple could easily double or even triple the iPhone sales by removing the restrictions that force more and more users to jailbreak their devices:

- 3G cellular restrictions, at least outside of the US. We don't use AT&T's network from the Cambrian period in the rest of the world.
- Allowing third-party applications to execute in the background. A must for music applications like Spotify.

Time to wake up, Apple!

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple is a monopoly regarding the iPhone.

Please look up what Monopoly means. Because what you just said now is completely ridiculous. By your definition, every company is a monopoly, because every company has a "monopoly" on their own products. Burger King sure isn't allowed to sell Big Macs and McDonald's can't sell Whoppers. Are Burger King and McDonald's monopolies ? Heck no.

A product is not a monopoly. To have a monopoly, you have to have a control position on a market, not a single product. Apple has plenty of competition in the smartphone arena and the cellphone market in general. They aren't even close to being number #1 (that honor goes to Symbian).

The rest of your argument is based on this flawed premise, and as such is completely garbage.

iphone applications is a market, app store is a marketplace for those products. it's the only market place for those products. apple themselves are citing their rule that duplicating functionality is ground for rejection of application from the app store. how exactly is that not a company using its market position to prevent competition? as far as i can see, that's pretty much the definition of illegal monopolistic behaviour.

No, No, No. And no. Did I say no ? iPhone applications is not a market. Smartphone applications are a market. If you don't like what Apple is doing with their platform (a product), you can move to a different platform. Blackberry has apps you can build and sell, Symbian to, WebOS, Android, etc.. Again, Apple is not even #1 in the marketplace.

Apple doesn't have a control position on the smartphone market. End of story. There is no monopoly. As much as I dislike what they are doing with the App Store, they are not abusing any kind of monopoly. You get to vote by going to the competition, which in some cases is stronger than they are. That's what I'm doing, waiting on some good offering by Android (new phones announced every week now) or Nokia's new platform (they are #1 with Symbian right now) Maemo.

You guys seem to believe that Apple is the first to offer some kind of programmable cellphone platform. You're dead wrong. J2ME and Symbian have been around for about 3 years prior to the iPhone. My very very old Sony Ericsson could run J2ME with SE extensions and Symbian stuff. SE had a SDK available with an emulator available back in 2003.

 

[hanpa]

Please look up what Monopoly means. Because what you just said now is completely ridiculous. By your definition, every company is a monopoly, because every company has a "monopoly" on their own products. Burger King sure isn't allowed to sell Big Macs and McDonald's can't sell Whoppers. Are Burger King and McDonald's monopolies ? Heck no.

A product is not a monopoly. To have a monopoly, you have to have a control position on a market, not a single product. Apple has plenty of competition in the smartphone arena and the cellphone market in general. They aren't even close to being number #1 (that honor goes to Symbian).

The rest of your argument is based on this flawed premise, and as such is completely garbage.

Since the iPhone and the iPod touch are general-purpose handheld computer platforms, there is an enormous amount of products/apps available now and in the future. Hard to understand that you don't recognize Apple's control position on that market.

I don't expect to be able to install applications on a Big Mac hamburger, I do expect to be able to do that on my iPhone. If there was a world-wide used application standard for handheld computers, I could búy apps anywhere and the handheld computer platform anywhere, as for the PC/Windows market. If such a standard was available and widely used, we would see some real competition.

 

[KnightWRX]

Since the iPhone and the iPod touch are general-purpose handheld computer platforms, there is an enormous amount of products/apps available now and in the future. Hard to understand that you don't recognize Apple's control position on that market.

I don't expect to be able to install applications on a Big Mac hamburger, I do expect to be able to do that on my iPhone. If there was a world-wide used application standard for handheld computers, I could búy apps anywhere and the handheld computer platform anywhere, as for the PC/Windows market. If such a standard was available and widely used, we would see some real competition.

You are free to get another general purpose handheld devices that meets your needs better.

There are plenty available, not all of them run Windows.

Apple has no control position on that market, they are a small player in the market. Nokia, the top player, is not even in a control position. Competition is very healthy in the market for either Smartphones or Internet type tablets/devices that can run 3rd party apps.

Just because you are blind to alternatives doesn't mean Apple is a monopoly or is abusing that monopoly they don't have by restraining their distribution channels.

 

[RaZaK]

well said, Monkey

Engadget does a really good job at explaining it in terms we can all understand.

Which, of course, begs the question: If you can't create a program that duplicates functionality, and you can't create a program that offers a new feature, what programs can you create?

[bold mine]

Maybe Apple just wants to continue encouraging the hacking community with this kind of behavior? Why don't they just admit they're scared of Google outshining them on their own phone?

On a side note, it would be hilarious if Google was using the iPhone customer base to beta test software they eventually plan on releasing in Android. lol

 

[kdarling]

Outside Mac forums and tech sites, barely anyone noticed. And of those that did, even fewer cared. I'm not sure Apple is in any rush to quash what doesn't exist in the first place.

It has been front page news on CNN, USA Today, BBC, WSJ and every financial or tech journal. And not for just a day.

The impact of any FCC rule change is huge, affecting the whole country and its future. So yes, Apple's part in this is very much noticed.

You might not paying much attention, but many others are. It's naive to try to downplay the importance of any changes that might come from this.

 

[KnightWRX]

On a side note, it would be hilarious if Google was using the iPhone customer base to beta test software they eventually plan on releasing in Android. lol

You got it to other way around. Android already has a Google Voice application. Android was also first to get tethering (well, not first, but they had it since launch, before the iPhone). Android also already has Augmented reality apps, something that's a new possibility only in 3.1.

In many ways, iPhone is taking bits and pieces from Android and vice versa.

You might not paying much attention, but many others are. It's naive to try to downplay the importance of any changes that might come from this.

He's down playing it, because if you haven't notice, *LTD* can never admit that Apple was wrong.

 

[w0ngbr4d]

iphone applications is a market, app store is a marketplace for those products. it's the only market place for those products. apple themselves are citing their rule that duplicating functionality is ground for rejection of application from the app store. how exactly is that not a company using its market position to prevent competition? as far as i can see, that's pretty much the definition of illegal monopolistic behaviour.

I could buy some land and open a flea market (app store). Instead of people having garage sales (selling apps on their own) people could pay a fee to set up a table and sell items to a wide variety of people who visit that flea market (the "market" inside the app store). I could prohibit certain items from being sold in my flea market for whatever reason I want (Apple's restrictions) because I own the flea market (app store). I am not being monopolistic because people could sell the prohibited items, like weapons (Google Voice) at a gun show (Android, Blackberry, etc).

...Hard to tell but I think that Apple could easily double or even triple the iPhone sales by removing the restrictions that force more and more users to jailbreak their devices...

I don't remember what the last statistic was, but the % of jailbroken devices hasn't even hit 10% because a majority of consumers don't care. If the percentage was 40% or 50% then you could have a valid argument.

What would happen if Apple decided to discontinue the App Store tomorrow? All they would have to do is flip a switch, disable it, prorate the developer's fees, issue refunds and make one last payment of profits to the developers. Given that example (which would never happen in real life, it makes too much money) is the App Store still a market or is it a product of Apple?

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't remember what the last statistic was, but the % of jailbroken devices hasn't even hit 10% because a majority of consumers don't care. If the percentage was 40% or 50% then you could have a valid argument.

Actually, I say that having close to 10% of iPhones being jailbroken is significant. Don't forget that jailbreaking requires a bit of digging around and locks you out of upgrading your phone unless you want to go through it again.

This is not something that is done outside of tech circles and the iPhone is used by a much wider audience that just geeks. Those people who don't know about jailbreaking can still be against the level of control Apple is exercising over the App store.

 

[hanpa]

Actually, I say that having close to 10% of iPhones being jailbroken is significant. Don't forget that jailbreaking requires a bit of digging around and locks you out of upgrading your phone unless you want to go through it again.

This is not something that is done outside of tech circles and the iPhone is used by a much wider audience that just geeks. Those people who don't know about jailbreaking can still be against the level of control Apple is exercising over the App store.

Jailbreaking may not be that popular in the US since the cellular networks cannot in general be used to the same level as in other countries. In Sweden e.g. I think that about 99% of the iPhone owners know that it's possible to jailbreak but also that there's a risk involved. If there was no risk at all involved, I'm sure that 90% or even more would do it. We have paid for plans that allow us to use our cellular network and the network can handle all the traffic. We really don't understand why Apple should put world-wide restrictions on the apps just because the US with AT&T is stuck in the 20th century regarding mobile internet.

 

[bjb.butler]

Jailbreaking may not be that popular in the US since the cellular networks cannot in general be used to the same level as in other countries. In Sweden e.g. I think that about 99% of the iPhone owners know that it's possible to jailbreak but also that there's a risk involved. If there was no risk at all involved, I'm sure that 90% or even more would do it. We have paid for plans that allow us to use our cellular network and the network can handle all the traffic. We really don't understand why Apple should put world-wide restrictions on the apps just because the US with AT&T is stuck in the 20th century regarding mobile internet.

that's not a good reason at all as to why more Swedish people know about jailbreaking

 

[Hypocrite]

Worst Case Scenario

Worst Case Scenario it gets that bad and ugly Google just might have the nudge to cut off Google Search, Images, Maps, Youtube etc.... But thats just Worst Case Scenario in this situation.....