Google Claims That Apple Did Reject Google Voice iPhone Application

[*LTD*]

Reading comprehension is your friend. Customers rating a company and where the customers are rated as a priority is a different thing.

With those results - or rather FACTS, available to everyone, "where the customers are rated" makes no difference.

With products like what Apple has rolled out over the last decade, they're more than welcome to rate me as a low priority!

You can tangle this up with semantics as much as you like. The fact remains . . . those surveys, reports, studies done over the years didn't just appear out of nowhere. And it's strange that Apple is consistently on top. Year after year. And that's only a small sampling I posted of what's out there. Record quarters, record Mac sales (in a recession, no less), rinse and repeat. So it's what, all due to the particular moon cycles at the time? Or does it have something to do with the tides, or the Earth's magnetic field?

You've only proven that there are as many people that will blindly believe Apple knows what's good for them.

Yes, that's right. If so many people are happy and enthusiastic with Apple, they *must* be blind, deaf and dumb - despite the existence of lower-cost alternative that purportedly add more value for the money, etc.

So if the argument that those satisafaction reports, surveys, studies, year after year are skewed, doesn't work, then the next attempt to obfuscate reality would be to dismiss those customers as idiots. Again, when nothing else works, just pretend they're all dumb.

But the minority of a minority, sitting here on MR, knows the *real* story, right? You're plugged in to the pulse of the tech industry, and everyone else despite facts, numbers, and REALITY, is wrong. ROFL.

 

[ViViDboarder]

With those results - or rather FACTS, available to everyone, "where the customers are rated" makes no difference.

With products like what Apple has rolled out over the last decade, they're more than welcome to rate me as a low priority!

You can tangle this up with semantics as much as you like. The fact remains . . . those surveys, reports, studies done over the years didn't just appear out of nowhere. And it's strange that Apple is consistently on top. Year after year. And that's only a small sampling I posted of what's out there. Record quarters, record Mac sales (in a recession, no less), rinse and repeat. So it's what, all due to the particular moon cycles at the time? Or does it have something to do with the tides, or the Earth's magnetic field?




Yes, that's right. If so many people are happy and enthusiastic with Apple, they *must* be blind, deaf and dumb - despite the existence of lower-cost alternative that purportedly add more value for the money, etc.

So if the argument that those satisafaction reports, surveys, studies, year after year are skewed, doesn't work, then the next attempt to obfuscate reality would be to dismiss those customers as idiots. Again, when nothing else works, just pretend they're all dumb.

But the minority of a minority, sitting here on MR, knows the *real* story, right? You're plugged in to the pulse of the tech industry, and everyone else despite facts, numbers, and REALITY, is worng. ROFL.

ROFL all you want. There are lots of people that are unhappy as well and lots of people that just stay quiet and don't know of anything better.

Here!!! I can post links too!!! (I won't flood the forum with too many)
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/computers/apple.html
http://appledefects.com/

Wow!!! There are people that contradict the opinions you showed!! People that have CONSISTENTLY found defects in Apple products that Apple refuses to fix!!! Who knew!?!?

Also, I think we can safely ignore your posts since you have admitted that you don't care if they ignore you as a customer.

Think about it... Why would we be here posting exclusively to bash Apple? I'm not an MR newbie. I own a Macbook Pro an iPod and an iPhone. It's just naive to think that Apple is OMFG Teh Bestest!!!

Apple is a very innovative company but I'll tell you I'm glad that their computers have a much loser rope than the iPhone. I like to be in control of my devices, even if they are Steve Jobs' babies.

 

[KnightWRX]

With those results - or rather FACTS, available to everyone, "where the customers are rated" makes no difference.

With products like what Apple has rolled out over the last decade, they're more than welcome to rate me as a low priority!

You mean their distant 3rd place in smartphones or their abysmal single digit market share in desktop PCs ?

Look, we obviously all love Apple products. But to think they are all flawless and good for everyone is insane.

 

[*LTD*]

You mean their distant 3rd place in smartphones or their abysmal single digit market share in desktop PCs ?

Look, we obviously all love Apple products. But to think they are all flawless and good for everyone is insane.

"Distant third"? in the span of two years, the iPhone, on a limited number of carriers, with a single device, is right behind RIM, and by the looks of it, closing damn fast. And the iPhone in China is just over the horizon. The iPhone will overtake RIM. That's a given.

Like I said, and like many others have said (outside the little MR bubble), the competition had better get its act together:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=20874

As for the "market share issue", you should know better, being on an Apple site and all . .

Apple functions at the Premium end of the market. It isn't one big market. There are levels to it. There are consumers in particular income brackets that are locked out of Apple's demographic. This is one of the defining characteristics of any Premium product.

Apple deliberately, and this has been stated numerous times by Jobs and Cook et al, does not license their OS out to everyone and their dog, and they deliberately choose to stay out of the low end, and even shun a good portion of the mid-end.

There are between 50-70 million Mac users. The Mac is understood as, and marketed as, a Premium product. Fewer units sold, but at much higher margins. Apple has stated quite clearly that they refuse to operate at the low-end. This means they provide a vastly different (and very attractive and coveted) user experience that people (who are able to) are willing to pay more for. Apple would not cheapen or muddy its brand image by competing on the same level with the likes of Dell, for example. Either you differentiate yourself via some clear, desirable, distinguishing features, or you compete on price like the rest of the pack.

This is what has Microsoft acting so defensive: Windows still has overwhelming unit sale market share, but it is now almost entirely at the low end of the market.There are substantial implications to Microsoft under these circumstances. Just one of the reasons they are opening these Stores. MS is trying very hard to shed its bargain-bin image. A bit late for that, though.

"Market Share" is very often misunderstood. With a fraction of Microsoft's market share, Apple is not only thriving, but it also is in a position as:

1) The industry innovator
2) The most powerful brand in the industry today
3) Producer of the most coveted notebooks and devices in the industry today
4) The one to follow. Apple does everyone else's R&D for them (apparently.)

So when you discuss "market share", you need to determine exactly which end of the market you're talking about. The lion's share of what part of the market? The Premium end of the market pyramid is near or at the top. It's much more narrow, but the consumer approaches tech (and other products) from an entirely different perspective (often not on price), with difference epxectations that Apple happens to cater to. Ideally, you WANT to rule the Premium end. It's these customers that build your brand, that make it desirable, and that will pay top dollar for what you provide.

 

[ViViDboarder]

Apple functions at the Premium end of the market. It isn't one big market. There are levels to it. There are consumers in particular income brackets that are locked out of Apple's demographic. This is one of the defining characteristics of any Premium product.

Apple deliberately, and this has been stated numerous times by Jobs and Cook et al, does not license their OS out to everyone and their dog, and they deliberately choose to stay out of the low end, and even shun a good portion of the mid-end.

There are between 50-70 million Mac users. The Mac is understood as, and marketed as, a Premium product. Fewer units sold, but at much higher margins. Apple has stated quite clearly that they refuse to operate at the low-end. This means they provide a vastly different (and very attractive and coveted) user experience that people (who are able to) are willing to pay more for. Apple would not cheapen or muddy its brand image by competing on the same level with the likes of Dell, for example. Either you differentiate yourself via some clear, desirable, distinguishing features, or you compete on price like the rest of the pack.

So... Microsoft is the "New Apple Inc.?"

The original founding of Apple with Woz was to bring PERSONAL computing to the consumer and make a computer that was affordable and not limited only to the rich and the big companies.

Microsoft is doing that quiet well. Linux even better.

I understand what you're saying about brand image though. It is most definitely Apple's reason for a lot of what they are doing. It cannot be denied that they hold their brand image higher than the desire of consumers. This is the reason they leave out features and don't offer an Apple Netbook etc...

Oh and PS... It's NOT a given that iPhone will overtake RIM. There are a lot of people that are just as happy with their blackberries as you are with your iPhone.


AAAND your post was edited...

Apple is not R&D for everyone else...
For example Mulit-Touch has been around for a while http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

Apple SELLS. They sell things very well and they make things look great.

I just don't see why, when nobody here is arguing that Apple is a good company worthy of us browsing rumors forums and buying their products, you have to go Mac-Head on us and bow down to kiss the feet of His Steveness.

NO. Apple did not invent sliced bread. Get over it and accept that they are just another company.

 

[KnightWRX]

"Distant third"? in the span of two years, the iPhone, on a limited number of carriers, with a single device, is right behind RIM, and by the looks of it, closing damn fast. And the iPhone in China is just over the horizon. The iPhone will overtake RIM. That's a given.

Right behind RIM, that like you said, appeals more to a business segment, which is narrower than the mass of population that the iPhone is destined too.

And Right behind by about 33% yeah with 13% to RIM's 18%.

The iPhone in China will be on 1 carrier, China Unicom. However, the other 2 big carriers will have the CPhone (China Telecom) and the OPhone (China Mobile). Those are both based on Android.

Android is now in it's first year. It is ahead in some features of its OS, it is ahead in number of carriers, it is ahead in number of Hardware manufacturers and it is ahead in devices. It has partnerships the like Steve Jobs only dreams of.

If you wish to ignore all this and think the iPhone can be more than a niche player if Apple continues on the path it took, then yes, you are being delusional. As it stand, by sheer numbers and without restrictions, in 2 years, Apple will still be behind RIM while Android will be wrestling with Nokia for 1st place.

 

[ViViDboarder]

Right behind RIM, that like you said, appeals more to a business segment, which is narrower than the mass of population that the iPhone is destined too.

And Right behind by about 33% yeah with 13% to RIM's 18%.

The iPhone in China will be on 1 carrier, China Unicom. However, the other 2 big carriers will have the CPhone (China Telecom) and the OPhone (China Mobile). Those are both based on Android.

Android is now in it's first year. It is ahead in some features of its OS, it is ahead in number of carriers, it is ahead in number of Hardware manufacturers and it is ahead in devices. It has partnerships the like Steve Jobs only dreams of.

If you wish to ignore all this and think the iPhone can be more than a niche player if Apple continues on the path it took, then yes, you are being delusional. As it stand, by sheer numbers and without restrictions, in 2 years, Apple will still be behind RIM while Android will be wrestling with Nokia for 1st place.

Another competitor announced today.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/22/moblin-2-1-eyes-on/

Intel went the opposite direction as Google. The Desktop/netbook OS Moblin is being brought to a phone. I've seen Moblin and it is really cool. This could be awesome.

 

[*LTD*]

So... Microsoft is the "New Apple Inc.?"

The original founding of Apple with Woz was to bring PERSONAL computing to the consumer and make a computer that was affordable and not limited only to the rich and the big companies

And you bring up an interesting point. It seems Apple has positioned itself as a provider of a Premium-space product over the last ten years or so. Of course, the marketing spin goes that it's worth the money and we should all be paying it as a matter of course.

It's a way to further differentiate itself from MS, partially by nurturing an image of exclusivity, hence something that adds to desirability. Apple's discovered over the last decade that there is quite a market for its products, along with people who are willing to pay for it. Apple is simply charging what the market is able to bear - and apparently, in a recession, too. People have to really, really want Macs to pay more for them in this economic enviroment. Apple realized they had a good product, something that has clearly distinguishing features and which is in great demand, and they at some point began to charge accordingly.

In this market, however, very few can compete on price with Windows PCs anyway. Something more is needed.

Macs are indeed the personal computer for everyone. Notwithstanding ability to pay.

Another competitor announced today.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/22/moblin-2-1-eyes-on/

Intel went the opposite direction as Google. The Desktop/netbook OS Moblin is being brought to a phone. I've seen Moblin and it is really cool. This could be awesome.

I tried the beta out back in June on an Asus Aspire One I bought for a relative. I was impressed. A little rough around the edges, but very suited to netbooks and the like. I loved the way everything was organized. I haven't played with it since, though.

 

[ViViDboarder]

And you bring up an interesting point. It seems Apple has positioned itself as a provider of a Premium-space product over the last ten years or so. Of course, the marketing spin goes that it's worth the money and we should all be paying it as a matter of course.

It's a way to further differentiate itself from MS, partially by nurturing an image of exclusivity, hence something that adds to desirability. Apple's discovered over the last decade that there is quite a market for its products, along with people who are willing to pay for it. Apple is simply charging what the market is able to bear - and apparently, in a recession, too. People have to really, really want Macs to pay more for them in this economic enviroment. Apple realized they had a good product, something that has clearly distinguishing features and which is in great demand, and they at some point began to charge accordingly.

In this market, however, very few can compete on price with Windows PCs anyway. Something more is needed.

Macs are indeed the personal computer for everyone. Notwithstanding ability to pay.




I tried the beta out back in June on an Asus Aspire One I bought for a relative. I was impressed. A little rough around the edges, but very suited to netbooks and the like. I loved the way everything was organized. I haven't played with it since, though.

Apple has been consistent in being an "alternative" to the norm. It's just funny that they have switched positions a bit since the very beginning as far as being for the average person.

I wish I could run Moblin! My netbook is an EeePC 900 and it doesn't have a compatible chip.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

With those results - or rather FACTS, available to everyone, "where the customers are rated" makes no difference.

You should work for apple or Obama. You are just a blind spin artist. My statement again had nothing to do with customer satisfaction again it had to do with Apple priorities, and customer service isn't one of them. Walk into an Apple store with a broken computer and watch all the iPhone users get support before you, walk in with an old Mac and watch the geniuses laugh at you. I was behind that bar for a long time the priorities just aren't their. Unless you buy Procare.

 

[FearNo1]

I agree. But first android phones need to be available on more providers than tmobile. Its like they have a monopoly on the device. Its in google's best interest to have android on multiple devices but multiple networks as well. While apple is a dominant player now, things could change in another year or two...

As it stand, by sheer numbers and without restrictions, in 2 years, Apple will still be behind RIM while Android will be wrestling with Nokia for 1st place.

 

[FearNo1]

I dunno... the mobile OS market is already too crowded with rim, apple, google, M$, palm, and symbian in it.

Another competitor announced today.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/22/moblin-2-1-eyes-on/

Intel went the opposite direction as Google. The Desktop/netbook OS Moblin is being brought to a phone. I've seen Moblin and it is really cool. This could be awesome.

 

[KnightWRX]

I agree. But first android phones need to be available on more providers than tmobile. Its like they have a monopoly on the device. Its in google's best interest to have android on multiple devices but multiple networks as well. While apple is a dominant player now, things could change in another year or two...

If you haven't read the thread, I already stated that Google has signed 3 of the top 4 carriers in the US. Sprint is getting their first Android phone on the 11th of October (the Sprint HTC Hero). Verizon is also getting into the action this fall. That's only in the US.

Smaller providers are also onboard. About the only company missing is AT&T. If they're anything like Rogers in Canada, they will also be getting Android devices.

 

[FearNo1]

Oh OK, no I have not read all this thread (it is 19 pages long!). So the hero is coming to US this year.. Will it be on other services other than sprint? I may be in the market for a new phone. The hero is pretty slick. I have thought about getting an iphone for a while but I dislike the crap that apple/at+t are pulling, plus the iphone still has a lousy speaker phone. Sprint may be making a come back with the unlimited everything, pre and hero. Hopefully their network can support the influx of users tho...

If you haven't read the thread, I already stated that Google has signed 3 of the top 4 carriers in the US. Sprint is getting their first Android phone on the 11th of October (the Sprint HTC Hero). Verizon is also getting into the action this fall. That's only in the US.

Smaller providers are also onboard. About the only company missing is AT&T. If they're anything like Rogers in Canada, they will also be getting Android devices.

 

[*LTD*]

You should work for apple or Obama. You are just a blind spin artist. My statement again had nothing to do with customer satisfaction again it had to do with Apple priorities, and customer service isn't one of them. Walk into an Apple store with a broken computer and watch all the iPhone users get support before you, walk in with an old Mac and watch the geniuses laugh at you. I was behind that bar for a long time the priorities just aren't their. Unless you buy Procare.

http://www.focus.com/fyi/customer-service/10-best-and-10-worst-companies-customer-service/

The American Consumer Satisfaction Index (ASCI)* second quarter report indicates that within the Personal Computers category, customers perceived Apple as the best company in terms of customer service. Apple’s baseline score was 77 (on a 100-point scale), and the Q2 2006 score was 83.

Computerworld, discussing Apple’s number one ranking says, “The Company’s focus on product innovation and customer service has won it a cadre of famously loyal customers, unlike any other PC vendor. And why are Dell’s scores slipping? The article elaborates, “Survey respondents complained mostly about the quality of Dell’s customer service, not its products, Van Amburg said… customers were clearly more frustrated with Dell than they were last year, he said.”

This blog post ‘New Virus Found! The You Suck Virus,’ states, “Part of being “excellent” in business is being innovative. If you agree with that one criteria (I know there are more) then Apple is the clear winner when it comes to innovation. Companies like Dell, HP, and IBM make good computers but once you compare them to a really excellent product (like an Apple) it is easy to see the difference.”

This 2003 article indicates that Apple is pretty consistent when it comes to high-quality customer service, “Apple did garnish the number one customer service ranking in the 2001 Consumer Reports Annual Questionnaire, and a number one ranking for desktop repairs in May 2003.” Here are some customer compliments for Apple.


http://www.macworld.com/article/133293/2008/05/consumer.html

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2...-service-gets-highest-marks-among-callers.ars

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/apple-tops-pc-customer-service-rankings/

http://deluxethemes.com/comfy/69/apples-customers-love-its-customer-service/

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comm...features-apples-high-customer-service-rating/

http://www.tuaw.com/2006/08/17/apple-turns-the-most-customer-service-frowns-upside-down/

http://experiencematters.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/apple-beats-windows-in-customer-experience/

 

[VoR]

My experience with dell's customer support has been fantastic the couple of times I've used it - I'd like to see apple driving round two new screens the next day, bought off ebay, without reciepts.
Last time I used apples customer service (that you pay extra for) it left a lot to be desired.

I'm afraid I don't read/write any blogs like the ones you pasted, and I've never participated in one of these (rubbish?...) satisfaction surveys. I live in the UK and I don't have experience of IT cs' anywhere else and don't know if/how it differs.

 

[rcarranza]

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.

I'm not going to rethink my position but will admit that my argument was flawed in this instance. I bought the iPhone for what it could do itself. The Apps store was a huge bonus. But I do not feel that Apple have to approve every single App that comes through.

It doesn't take away anything. It adds more choice.

I made a choice when I bought the phone, as did many other consumers. To use the OS/functions already provided. I do not need another one as I believe the one provided does the job and does it well.

Apple opened up a can of worms with the Apps Store, in terms of what it could and should allow. I for one believe it is Apples choice and their choice alone whether they allow an App to be sold/distributed on their device.

Should Tesco (UK supermarket) demand that Asda sells its own brand food. Even though they have the shops to do it themselves?

But the whole reason I'm against this is the idea that Google are trying to get in on everything! It won't be long before Google causes the death of things like independent news/libraries etc. Don't be evil seems to be a distant memory.

They've created their own device/OS. Use that if you want certain features inherent to Google. I'm happy using the features that are on my iPhone and have no other need for this alternative. And surprise, surprise, there will be more people who feel that way about it than those up in arms about this.

 

[xIGmanIx]

all the arguments for rejecting this based on duplicate feature set blah blah blah are crap. If apple or AT&T had heartburn, you wouldn't allow VOIP on any device period, which they don't or that apple doesn't allow any other similar feature set on the iPhone, which they do, Skype. If true, it just is another chip away at the folks from Apple being monopolistic

 

[bjb.butler]

all the arguments for rejecting this based on duplicate feature set blah blah blah are crap. If apple or AT&T had heartburn, you wouldn't allow VOIP on any device period, which they don't or that apple doesn't allow any other similar feature set on the iPhone, which they do, Skype. If true, it just is another chip away at the folks from Apple being monopolistic

Well skype is a VoIP app...

Google Voice IS NOT a VoIP app, and it does in fact duplicate several different elements of built-in iPhone functionality.

 

[KnightWRX]

I'm happy using the features that are on my iPhone and have no other need for this alternative.

And what does Apple approving Google's app change for you ? Nothing at all. So you being against it because you don't need it seems pretty egotistical.

 

[Rampant.A.I.]

Apple really needs to kick Cingulair/AT&T out of bed.

Limiting their market share and pulling stunts like this is not helping them.

 

[revbarabbas]

This is exactly what happened with Opera mini.

Safari in the iPhone 3GS is ****ing great. But if Opera manages to get their app into the App store I'll sure as hell will be buying an iPhone. (provided I can unlock it )

The thing that messes me up is that Opera gets the boot, but "FullBrowser" gets to stay? I can only wonder what will happen when Fennec goes up for App approval.

 

[KnightWRX]

The thing that messes me up is that Opera gets the boot, but "FullBrowser" gets to stay? I can only wonder what will happen when Fennec goes up for App approval.

Full Browser is just a Web View with a new fancy menu. It's basically using Safari's engine and just providing a different UI on top of it.

Opera Mobile is a full HTML/JS engine with a new UI. It's not based on Webkit at all.

There's your justification for rejecting Opera.

 

[ViViDboarder]

Full Browser is just a Web View with a new fancy menu. It's basically using Safari's engine and just providing a different UI on top of it.

Opera Mobile is a full HTML/JS engine with a new UI. It's not based on Webkit at all.

There's your justification for rejecting Opera.

That's even MORE of a reason for Opera to be approved over Full Browser!

I think it's more confusing if the browser is exactly the same but with a new GUI.

Options are always better for the consumer. So for the few of you saying "I wouldn't use it," it doesn't matter. Then you don't have to miss it. The developers wouldn't waste their time building these apps if people didn't want them. There are lots of people that would want to see a Google Voice app or, while on the topic, even an Opera app in the App store and would not be "confused" at all.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

That's even MORE of a reason for Opera to be approved over Full Browser!

I think it's more confusing if the browser is exactly the same but with a new GUI.

Options are always better for the consumer. So for the few of you saying "I wouldn't use it," it doesn't matter. Then you don't have to miss it. The developers wouldn't waste their time building these apps if people didn't want them. There are lots of people that would want to see a Google Voice app or, while on the topic, even an Opera app in the App store and would not be "confused" at all.

Well you want the real reason Opera was rejected. It is all about money. On Safari apple gets a slight cut for all the ad money made though good searches you do though the phone. Take for example firefox. That night little default Googe search in the top netted Mozilla 72 million off google searches alone a few years ago. Back when firefox when firefox was just in the 1.0 stage.

That is the real reason. It is not about consumers but about the money. Apple is what I call a chicken company and has little faith in its own products standing up in a head to head fight with the competition.