Everyone is a foreigner. I'm a foreigner to people outside the US. They're foreigners to me. And the band Foreigner certainly isn't running Google.
And for having such ugly GUIs they sure have become the most popular web service on the internet.
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
Everyone is a foreigner. I'm a foreigner to people outside the US. They're foreigners to me. And the band Foreigner certainly isn't running Google.
And for having such ugly GUIs they sure have become the most popular web service on the internet.
cosign
I trust Apple's taste and I WANT them to define to my experience.
Yes, GV should be on the iphone and yes, most apps are for kids, but I trust the company to make the right decisions in the long term, as they usually do.
What user experience?!
I find the whole 'interfering with user experience' argument extremely shallow.
Here is the deal, I think - Google has an app, you download it if you want to and use it if you like it. And you decide, whether it improves your experience or not. The app is not interfering with the iPhones' setup, it only provides a feature that is also provided by Apple. So it's up to you, which one you prefer. And that's how it should be. Rotten Apple! It wants to @@@@ with its customers?! How is it better not to have the choice?!
I find the whole 'interfering with user experience' argument extremely shallow.
Here is the deal, I think - Google has an app, you download it if you want to and use it if you like it. And you decide, whether it improves your experience or not. The app is not interfering with the iPhones' setup, it only provides a feature that is also provided by Apple. So it's up to you, which one you prefer. And that's how it should be. Rotten Apple! It wants to @@@@ with its customers?! How is it better not to have the choice?!
Gotta side with Apple on this one. Why would they want to approve an app that takes away from the phone core function? If you want to use Google voice then get an Android phone. You wouldn't walk into a BMW garage and ask for them to install the engine/internals of an Audi! 
Why do Google have to control/have a stake in everything?
Does anyone else think that if Google wins this then we'll look back one day and realise that this moment was when Google became evil?
Why do Google have to control/have a stake in everything?
Does anyone else think that if Google wins this then we'll look back one day and realise that this moment was when Google became evil?
Which has the been the attitude of MS designers and engineers for the last decade.
Maintaining the User Experience has its price. But I'd rather sacrifice an app or two for it than throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The whole point is that Apple designs and controls the user experience. That's the hook. That's one of the keys to their success. Hence, the iPhone. You're describing a Windows-centric situation, which is the last thing anyone needs. And judging by the success of the iPhone so far, Apple's strategy is working out beautfully.
I'd rather Apple take the User Experience paradigm too far than start to erode it little by little. That ish starts to add up over time.
It's a single app out of 70,000+ apps. Get over it. It might be worth asking for, but it's in no way, shape or form worth altering Apple's core strategy.
User Experience is EVERYTHING. If you don't like it, there are other platforms to choose from.
What about the marketing aspect?
Everyone I know that has an iphone is buying one because they've seen it on tv or think that it's the 'in' thing to get - literally. They certainly haven't bought them for 'oh my the user experience is great'.
I don't see how anyone can argue that limiting the device is better. Most people that buy a gadget like these can use it is out of the box with the app store, while people that want to use (or develop for) the device as a portable computer and to its full potential should be allowed to...
What about the marketing aspect?
Everyone I know that has an iphone is buying one because they've seen it on tv or think that it's the 'in' thing to get - literally. They certainly haven't bought them for 'oh my the user experience is great'.
I don't see how anyone can argue that limiting the device is better. Most people that buy a gadget like these can use it is out of the box with the app store, while people that want to use (or develop for) the device as a portable computer and to its full potential should be allowed to...
Well why do you think it's the "in" thing to get in the first place. Made by Apple. Why and how do you think Made by Apple became so desirable?
User Experience. Just like any and nearly all other Apple products. It's dificult to explain in words, but it's the reason Apple is the single most important tech company today. It's what differentiates Apple from the rest of the pack. This goes back well over a decade.
It comes down to a costs vs. benefits issue. It isn't necssarily limiting the device. In fact, Apple's device appears to be the most non-limited, fully featured of its kind. Have you tried Android on an HTC yet? Yikes. A BB is a glorified e-mailer. WinMo is just nasty. For the iPhone, there truly is an app for nearly everything you might want to do. Not so for other platforms. And it doesn't look like it'll happen for the also-rans anytime soon.
Apple runs a walled garden. I'd still rather be a part of it than anything else, however. That isn't to say something GV-like won't come along by Apple or which will be aproved by Apple in the future, but for now, it's a sacrifice I can more than live with. And it looks like others can too. It mgiht be worth grumbling over, but it sure as hell isn't worth sacrificing Apple's strategy over. At all.
And GV was killed by AT&T. The Apple story was just a cover. It's all about money, and there was never much Apple could do about it to begin with. Things will change, but the change will come from increased competition between carriers (new carriers arriving on the scene, Canada will be an example over the next 6 months), and very little else.
What about the marketing aspect?
Everyone I know that has an iphone is buying one because they've seen it on tv or think that it's the 'in' thing to get - literally. They certainly haven't bought them for 'oh my the user experience is great'.
..
That's funny. Everyone I know who has an iPhone (and there are many) has one because of the power, ease of use and overall capablity of the device. Sounds to me like you have a lot of very shallow friends.
AAC is a standard and well supported format. It's not locked to any particular vendor. You can also convert the music to mp3 without any problems (though converting a lossy format to another will affect quality).
Copy Protection is a thing of the past. You can remove it from any past purchases also, for a fee. Again, nothing locks you out of your music (and you knew about the DRM when you purchased it).
So again I ask, what prevents you from playing your music bought from iTunes on your Creative player ?
Wait what ? Takes what away exactly ? The app, once installed, doesn't take away anything. You can still use your iPhone like you used it before installing it.
You get the added functionality of using Google Voice's voicemail/SMS/dialer if you wish to use it.
So your argument is flawed, as such, you side with Apple without even knowing what this is all about. You might want to rethink your position.
What about the DRM for TV shows, audio books, music not upgradable by iTunes. I still have some albums and music that is available without DRM on the iTunes store but I still have not been given the option to upgrade those songs. Also some songs are no longer available on the iTunes store and I can't purchase the non DRM upgrade.
I wish Apple and Google can partner together to bring this App on the iPhone. They did good with the Google Maps.
I think the point here is not whether GV interferes with the OS. I think the point is that Apple lied about this matter, in a material way, and they just got caught.
The technical discussion is less the issue, as far as I can tell. If Phil tells Google one thing, and then tells the FCC another when the Commission starts snooping around, that's a problem.
We all love our iPhones and the user experience, and most of us hate AT&T. But who do you think selected AT&T as the exclusive carrier? Who do you think is carrying water for them now?
The technical discussion is less the issue, as far as I can tell. If Phil tells Google one thing, and then tells the FCC another when the Commission starts snooping around, that's a problem.
We all love our iPhones and the user experience, and most of us hate AT&T. But who do you think selected AT&T as the exclusive carrier? Who do you think is carrying water for them now?
It doesn't take away anything. It adds more choice.
If you want to use Google voice then get an Android phone. You wouldn't walk into a BMW garage and ask for them to install the engine/internals of an Audi!
Bad analogy. Changing the engine would be switching OS's or CPUs.
Adding apps is more like adding satellite radio to your current radio. Should BMW prevent you from doing that, because they believe their radio design and limitations take precedence over your desires?
Nice handwaving. But allowing user apps has also been the "attitude" of Mac designers, as well. Replace all your "Windows" references with "Apple" and you simply define what people are used to having: free choice of third party apps.
THEN, GOOD GRIEF, JUST DON'T DOWNLOAD THE APP THAT OFFENDS YOU. How easy is that? D'oh! But why stop the rest of us who perhaps are a little more sophisticated in our needs?
Love it or leave it, eh? Fortunately, people who want more, are a major reason why we have onboard apps, not just "Jobs-sweet" web ones.
You're worried about the UX. That's fine. Apple can force Google to use certain UI look and feel guidelines. But claiming that users would get too confused by another choice that they downloaded on purpose? Wow.
Agreed.
This.
But really, would Verizon have not done the same thing?
It's a carrier issue. Not an Apple issue. Go with a small carrier and you've got capacity issues - they wouldn't be able to handle the network strain. Go with a large carrier and you're beholden to most of their whims.
It's not Apple's fault. There is no sense in blaming them. And Google seems to be the most ignorant of all, unless we choose to believe that they knew exactly what would happen, and knew it would turn out for their benefit. Pick your poison.
The issue is that Apple might have lied. The question is, if they hadn't, what would have done to their relationship with AT&T?
Tough call all around, folks.
That claim might have also been part of the AT&T cover. If it was a lie, it seems it didn't get by everyone.
2009 Macrumors Fanboy awards.
To spice up the site we should have the annual Fanboy awards. We could all nominate and then vote. Cool eh.
I would like to nominate LTD for
2009 Fanboy of the year
2009 Apple Apologist of the year
He really has gone beyond the call of duty this year, what a gutsy and professional performance. I challenge anyone to find a post in 2009 where LTD has said anything bad about Apple.
/clap
Till GV is on the App store, one can safely assume that its rejected. Truth is most of us do not care about GV nor will be even use it, its just we think that Apple has handled this situation in a really piss weak manner. If you going to reject it, just go ahead and do it, at least have the balls to do it.
To spice up the site we should have the annual Fanboy awards. We could all nominate and then vote. Cool eh.
I would like to nominate LTD for
2009 Fanboy of the year
2009 Apple Apologist of the year
He really has gone beyond the call of duty this year, what a gutsy and professional performance. I challenge anyone to find a post in 2009 where LTD has said anything bad about Apple.
/clap
Till GV is on the App store, one can safely assume that its rejected. Truth is most of us do not care about GV nor will be even use it, its just we think that Apple has handled this situation in a really piss weak manner. If you going to reject it, just go ahead and do it, at least have the balls to do it.
You knew about the DRM when you made the purchase. I decided to stay away from DRM just for this reason. It has nothing to do with Piracy, it's all about controlling obsolescence for your media and forcing you to buy it again once a new format is needed.
I would buy tons of TV shows from iTunes if it wasn't for the DRM.
Why doesn't AT&T prevent users from installing Google Voice on their Blackberry phones if that is really the case ?
I doubt this is any of AT&T's doing. This is all Apple just being Apple. They have been control freaks with the iPhone since day one. The SDK never was supposed to exist, neither was the App Store.
Face it, Google Voice is available on other phones AT&T carries. It's available through the Web interface. It still uses your AT&T minutes for voice calling because it's not VOIP like some people think (it's only phone number aggregation). It still uses your data plan for SMS messaging and worse, it uses your data plan for Voicemail.
Why can't you admit Apple might be wrong ? Once. In. Your. Life. Just this once. We won't ask that you admit the same for when Apple said matte screens were gone. We won't ask either for when Apple said apps on the iPhone should be Web based. And we won't ask you to admit Apple was wrong for all those other times they did something, users whined, and they changed their minds.
The good old "Chinese inspection". What movie was that from again ? Guy explains that when the chinese don't want a batch of letuce into the country, they let it sit on the docks for a couple of weeks until they are ready to inspect it. By then, it's rotten and has to be thrown out.
Yes, 3G Unrestrictor can be used for Skype calls over 3G cellular. Other examples:
- Using the built-in YouTube app with decent quality on 3G (same as on Wi-Fi) instead of the crappy quality that you get with the crippled app over 3G.
- Sync songs for off-line listening in Spotify also over 3G, otherwise restricted to Wi-Fi sync
- Sync files using various web based storage services, otherwise restricted to Wi-Fi (Don't know if this restriction will apply to the upcoming Dropbox app, hope not)
Just to be clear, I have not jailbroken my device yet. But I probably will if Apple doesn't change their policy. Not just for the 3G cellular restrictions but also for the possibility to run music applications like web radio or Spotify in the background to be able to keep listening at the same time as using apps like Mail, Safari, Maps etc. I've only used the iPod app once, the fact that this app can run in the background is of no use to me unless it's upgraded to support web radio like RadioBox and streaming on-demand music like Spotify.
Take Apple out of the mix for a second.
Why do you think AT&T wanted to pull GV from the iPhone, and not other phones on its network?
AT&T doesn't have the ability to muscle RIM into blocking specific apps. In fact, I'm not even certain that apps can be blocked for Blackberry, correct me if I'm wrong. They do have that ability with the iPhone, which needs Apple's blessing for every app installed unless it's jailbroken (which voids warranty and risks being bricked by OS updates).
What motivation would Apple possibly have to block Google Voice on its own? It doesn't compete with any Apple product or service, and it would increase the value of the iPhone. If anything, Apple would want to encourage the development of an iPhone Google Voice app.
It's AT&T that is threatened.
AT&T lacks technical and/or legal means to prohibit Windows Mobile and Blackberry users from installing third party applications. AT&T can’t sue Google for offering a Blackberry app. All they can do is ban things in the terms of service, and pray people will obey. Apple has declared themselves gatekeeper for iTunes Store content, and that makes Apple responsible for its content. Apple and AT&T have agreements in place. Through those agreements, AT&T gains a level of control over third party applications they don’t enjoy with the other handsets. Had Apple gone with Verizon instead, we'd be likely be seeing the exact same thing.
And really, The iPhone has hit AT&T in numbers it can’t handle, and AT&T must be in a terrible love/hate relationship over it with both Apple and the consumers who have the iPhone. BB users are more likely business users and therefore less likely to jack around with apps like slingplayer or google voice. Consumer type iPhone users are far more likely to suck up data with these apps, and far more likely to drop expensive SMS services and replace them. Business users won’t hassle with it, or will be prevented by corporate IT policy.
Makes plenty sense for AT&T to treat iPhone differently than other phones. AT&T holds the iPhone to a different set of standards and rules than other devices on its network.
The iPhone, in terms of network strain, data usage, and consumer usage habits, is unprecedented. It will overtake RIM. It's only a matter of time, and it'll happen sooner than we think. That will be an entirely unique strain on the major carriers, both financially and in terms of capacity. AT&T, at least in this case, saw the writing on the wall, and it did the most prudent thing in terms of it preparedness (or lack thereof.) They put a stop to GV.
Though BMW does allow and in many parts contribute to aftermarket add ons such as those by Hamann and AC Schnitzer.
FCC lays out net neutrality principles
Okay, so the FCC proposed two new guidelines.
List of guidelines here.
WSJ article hints that carriers might have to charge differently for people who use more.
Sounds fair, although iPhone YouTube junkies and WM Pandora lovers would have a fit.
Okay, so the FCC proposed two new guidelines.
List of guidelines here.
WSJ article hints that carriers might have to charge differently for people who use more.
Sounds fair, although iPhone YouTube junkies and WM Pandora lovers would have a fit.
Wow, you really can't admit Apple might be wrong here. You'd rather call them liars and slaves to AT&T than admit they might have made a mistake.
If AT&T can only block Google Voice on the iPhone, what good is it doing them ? They have Windows Mobile phones, they have Blackberry phones, they have tons of other phones capable of running Google Voice. And no, Blackberry is not limited to business types anymore. I see tons of kids running around with cheapo Pearl Flips and Storms.
AT&T has nothing to gain from just blocking the service on the iPhone and doing so might drive a few potential iPhone customers away from their expensive data plans. Hate the iPhone because of the increased business ? I very very much doubt it.
And it's not like Apple has never, ever made mistakes. They make mistakes often. They are slowly opening up the iPhone more and more. It shows that they realise that they can't continue keeping it closed forever. This is a mistep.
What would you say if tomorrow, Apple decided to allow the Google Voice app ? To open the App Store to unapproved apps, in a special section ? Would you admit their mistake then ?
I wouldn't admit to something I don't believe.
As to your second question:
It might happen sometime in the future. But that certainly doesn't mean they were "wrong" up until then. And if they never release it, and never do what you propose and still succeed as well as they do now, does that make me wrong? Does it really make them wrong?
Does the fact that the vast majority don't care about this issue, yet you do, make you right? Does that make those who don't care wrong?
Tough call all around.
Clearly, Apple is doing most things right with the iPhone. There are a few niggles here and there, but in terms of the big picture, they're minor. If you and others wish to treat them as something more and go on and on for pages and pages, that's entirely up to you.
Seriously, if anything he's entertaining. No matter how one sided the scenario, you can always open a thread where he will find a way to protect apple and absolve them of blame
This quixotic adventure is fascinating except for the small detail that AT&T allows the application on other platforms. All the available evidence contradicts your zany AT&T responsibility theory. You repeatedly emphasize Apple's need to control UI and other facets of the iphone and now you're saying that their reasoning is merely a lie to protect AT&T. What incentive do they have to protect them? AT&T would still want the phone regardless of the investigations outcome. Until more is uncovered I think your hypothesis sounds far fetched.
Even if your tale was remotely factual, Apple and AT&T should be penalized for collusion. Which you appear to have no problem with, which seems to align with your usual position on apple (they can't do wrong, they're wildly successful, issue doesnt matter to the majority, apple hasnt included it so its not necessary, I never had a problem so it doesnt exist, dont buy it then, etc)