Google Claims That Apple Did Reject Google Voice iPhone Application

[axual]

Did not. Did to.

Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Rabbit season.
Google: Duck season.
Apple: Rabbit season.
Google: Duck season.

Elmer Fudd shoots duck.
😛

 

[pdjudd]

I'm not complaining. I don't force you to use a certain app on your iPhone, I don't have to use the phone on mine.

Perhaps I should have said "issue" instead of "complaint". And no, I am not saying that you should be be using the phone portion of the iPhone at all. However call the device what it is - a Phone.

Actually, in one of Apple's ads, they describe all the great functions and at the end mention that it's also a great phone.

I think calling the device "iPhone" is what defines it as a phone. Besides, when the iPhone was first introduced, it was leading it as a phone. App development (which is what you want) didn't come for another year. Sure, things expanded once Apps hit, but I think that Apple, its it's ads, are saying that all of this - in a phone. That's why the ad's end with the phone ringing. The ad's that are not telecommunications oriented are the touch. Thats a whole 'nother ball game though. My point. It's a phone and should be looked at from that perspective.

Still, I currently don't use the phone part and I'm an adult person that can make my own choices... I don't need the phone part. OK?

Did I ever said you have to use it as a Phone? No. Most people that I know that get an iPhone, get it because it is a phone. That's what I have been trying to tell you. When you buy an iPhone, you are buying a phone. You are not buying a computer or anything else.

 

[nkawtg72]

I fully understand that I don't have the legal right to demand anything. But I demand some attention from Apple and together with a lot of other users with similar needs, Apple might change sooner or later. I live in Sweden.

that's cool. i agree, you can demand things of apple. i am of the opinion though that if they dont listen, you as a end user have the choice to then "vote" with your wallet. there are others on here though that think at that point the government should step in and force Apple to give in the to your demands.

i've been to Sweden. great place. beautiful country. very friendly people there. i'm actually a little jealous 🙂

 

[pdjudd]

Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Duck season.
Google: Rabbit season.
Apple: Rabbit season.
Google: Duck season.
Apple: Rabbit season.
Google: Duck season.

Elmer Fudd shoots duck.
😛

You forgot:
Google: Duck season! Fire! 😀

 

[Eso]

Let me give the apologists a little metaphor in the form of a commercial:

Google gives us a red truck and Apple takes it away.

Red truck = google voice app.
Man in suit = Apple
Kid = consumer
Limited time offer in fine print = apps cannot duplicate functionality in fine print

1) Google produces an app for an operating system
2) Google presents app to consumers (for approval to app store)
3) Apple says, "no, consumers can't have this, but here, take this web version instead!"

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

30% drop out rate currently exists in the US. Oklahoma seniors > 70% couldn't name the first president of the United States of America.

There is a high probability people screaming the US is headed in the wrong direction don't know the difference between their heads from their rears on Economics, Political systems and much more.

So you're saying.... people with a weak grasp on fascism, communism and socialism are.... from Oklahoma?

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

The real reason is the AT&T a-list coming out in 2 days. Add your Google number and get unlimited calling for $60/month.

It can still work w/o a Google Voice app on the phone, but it makes it a bit more cumbersome to use. Personally, all my work calls that originate while I'm sitting at a computer anyways are going to go through GV from now on, and I'm dropping my unlimited minutes plan back to the 900 minute plan for $60/month.

Get with the program AT&T!

 

[pdjudd]

that's cool. i agree, you can demand things of apple.

I agree, except I would replace "demand" with "ask".

i am of the opinion though that if they dont listen you as a end user have the choice to then "vote" with your wallet.

Yes. Just because one asks, doesn't mean the answer has to be "yes". In this case, the answer was "no"

there are others on here though that think at that point the government should step in and force Apple to give in the your demands.

I agree - as long as the requests are relevant. The FCC shouldn't get involved with Apple's rejection of say, a porn game. I do think that they should look at things like the banning of Skype over 3G for example because that can involve the public airwaves. If it tunes out that Google Voice just used 3G as a data transmission and not for actual voice transmission, their involvement should end. The question here is weather or not this is a private matter between Google and Apple involving a contract, or is it between Apple/AT&T, Google, and the FCC involving voice and public airwaves.

 

[*LTD*]

So you're saying.... people with a weak grasp on fascism, communism and socialism are.... from Oklahoma?

And probably from many other states, unfortunately. Political understanding in the US has taken a turn for the worse over the last decade.

 

[nkawtg72]

Let me give the apologists a little metaphor in the form of a commercial:

Google gives us a red truck and Apple takes it away.

Red truck = google voice app.
Man in suit = Apple
Kid = consumer
Limited time offer in fine print = apps cannot duplicate functionality in fine print

1) Google produces an app for an operating system
2) Google presents app to consumers (for approval to app store)
3) Apple says, "no, consumers can't have this, but here, take this web version instead!"

tell you what. keep calling me(us) apologists. the more you do that the more you come across like you're Obsessive Compulsive.

give it up already. the more i side with apple the more you call me an apologist. the more you keep trying to convince me that im wrong and your right, the more i think you have OCD because you just won't let go.

state your opinion and move on. throwing names out like its candy doesnt get you anywhere in the respect department.

 

[hanpa]

Perhaps I should have said "issue" instead of "complaint". And no, I am not saying that you should be be using the phone portion of the iPhone at all. However call the device what it is - a Phone.



I think calling the device "iPhone" is what defines it as a phone. Besides, when the iPhone was first introduced, it was leading it as a phone. App development (which is what you want) didn't come for another year. Sure, things expanded once Apps hit, but I think that Apple, its it's ads, are saying that all of this - in a phone. That's why the ad's end with the phone ringing. The ad's that are not telecommunications oriented are the touch. Thats a whole 'nother ball game though. My point. It's a phone and should be looked at from that perspective.




Did I ever said you have to use it as a Phone? No. Most people that I know that get an iPhone, get it because it is a phone. That's what I have been trying to tell you. When you buy an iPhone, you are buying a phone. You are not buying a computer or anything else.

I disagree. This may be hard to understand but this is a fact. The first computers were used to crack ciphers and for administrative task like salary systems. This is not the reason why I buy a computer.

From www.apple.com
"iPhone is more than just a phone. It combines three devices in one: a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod, and a breakthrough Internet device."

I don't think it's a revolutionary mobile phone, not at all actually.

OK, it works as an iPod but currently I'm using Spotify for listening to music so for me it's a widescreen Spotify.

I agree on the breakthrough internet device and that's the main reason why I bought it. The device is more breakthrough in theory than in practice due to the 3g cellular restrictions that are not technically motivated in most countries.

 

[RoboCop001]

As Secret CEO to both Google and Apple, I can confirm that we DID in fact reject our Google voice application, but then quickly unrejected it after receiving a large amount of sexy money from ourselves the night after.

And that's the end of that chapter.

 

[pdjudd]

Let me give the apologists a little metaphor in the form of a commercial:

Google gives us a red truck and Apple takes it away.

Red truck = google voice app.
Man in suit = Apple
Kid = consumer
Limited time offer in fine print = apps cannot duplicate functionality in fine print

1) Google produces an app for an operating system
2) Google presents app to consumers (for approval to app store)
3) Apple says, "no, consumers can't have this, but here, take this web version instead!"

No. Apple is just saying that this is not a truck stop and we never said it was one. Not to mention that Google may be giving us (rather offering) something that they don't have the entire rights to give since they never cleared it with their partners.

Google may offer a truck, but they can't do it on their own.

 

[phatcat]

They can "discuss" it for years to come... It's just as good as rejecting it.

 

[DougB541]

I think the bigger issue here is that they potentially lied to the FCC about this.


What reason does Google have to lie? Apple has shown they have no issue lying on the other hand (hey Steve Jobs has a hormonal imbalance....aka....a liver transplant).

I agree....Apple has become the company they were going against. They still make great products but come on.

 

[pdjudd]

I disagree. This may be hard to understand but this is a fact. The first computers were used to crack ciphers and for administrative task like salary systems. This is not the reason why I buy a computer.

I would argue that the computers that we use today are the spawn of their originators - not their originators. I also argue that computers are just elaborate calculators. But thats neither here nor there

From www.apple.com
"iPhone is more than just a phone. It combines three devices in one: a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod, and a breakthrough Internet device."

Their first definition of the item is a phone. Its the first thing on their list. And note that none of that predicates running standalone apps! It is a phone first and foremost. If you want to argue it's something else, fine, but that doesn't make it true. Answer this, why call it an iPhone if it is not in fact a phone at its heart? By not call it the Touch and not even market the phone at all?

I don't think it's a revolutionary mobile phone, not at all actually.

We could argue that until the cows come home and not get anywhere. Simply becasue you say "no it ain't" doesn't make it true.

OK, it works as an iPod but currently I'm using Spotify for listening to music so for me it's a widescreen Spotify.

I agree on the breakthrough internet device and that's the main reason why I bought it. The device is more breakthrough in theory than in practice due to the 3g cellular restrictions that are not technically motivated in most countries.

You bought it for one feature. However you should be aware that the "internet device" moniker is not what it truly is. Just becasue you are not using the phone part doesn't change that it is a phone. Thats what you have - a phone. You can call it whatever you wish - call it Dave for all it matters. You still got a phone.

 

[Eso]

No. Apple is just saying that this is not a truck stop and we never said it was one.

The OS is the truck stop, so yes, they did say it was one (i.e. platform for apps).

 

[lkrupp]

What if they hate Apple but like its products? 😛

Makes no sense what-so-ever. The products are the company. If they hate Apple as much as they claim to they are being disingenuous in using Apple products. They go on and on about how Apple disrespects the customer by dictating how things work and what options are available. They rant and rave with every release of a product, condemning it for the lack of this or that feature, capability, or function. They denigrate Apple's management team for its marketing decisions, claiming they know how to do it better. Then they have have the balls to sign with a signature that proudly advertises every single Apple product they possess, as if this somehow makes them subject matter experts. They are losers, every last one of them. Their attitudes go well beyond constructive criticism, which every company needs and desires. They are downright mean and hateful. They want Apple sued. They want Apple to be forced by the federal government to comply with their personal wishes. They want Apple taken down.

Yet they continue to be customers. The mind boggles at the sheer irrationality of the mindset. If I actually felt the same as these losers do about Apple there's no way I could continue to be their customer.

 

[Warbrain]

As I've said before - maybe not here, don't remember - but there's something more here than what Apple and at&t are letting on.

 

[rdaff292]

he said, she said

does it matter?

Google's app still isn't in the app store.

Why should I care if it was rejected or not?

 

[pdjudd]

I think the bigger issue here is that they potentially lied to the FCC about this.

Possibly.

What reason does Google have to lie?

I could think of several, namely that they compete with Apple in teh mobile space

Apple has shown they have no issue lying on the other hand (hey Steve Jobs has a hormonal imbalance....aka....a liver transplant).

Thats pretty disingenuous. A liver transplant is a treatment, not a disease.

 

[BryanLyle]

does it matter?

Google's app still isn't in the app store.

Why should I care if it was rejected or not?

Exactly. If Apple didn't reject it, then we should be told why it hasn't been accepted yet.

 

[pdjudd]

The OS is the truck stop, so yes, they did say it was one (i.e. platform for apps).

Apple never said that Google had unlimited parking privileges though. they can pass through (as a web app) but they never were given a parking permit and they never said that it was a free-for all.

Not even in the real world can you get something unconditionally. There are always terms.

 

[pdjudd]

Exactly. If Apple didn't reject it, then we should be told why it hasn't been accepted yet.

Why? Apple doesn't have to tell the public anything regarding a private contract between two companies.

Until the government and the FCC says otherwise, this remains a dispute between Apple and Google that the public is paying attention to

 

[occamsrazor]

Then they have have the balls to sign with a signature that proudly advertises every single Apple product they possess, as if this somehow makes them subject matter experts.

I think most people use signatures listing their Apple products so when they post in a thread about some technical issue or problem, people know exactly what hardware they are running on, as it may be specifically related to the problem in hand, without littering the forums with "what machine are you using" posts. Actually it makes a lot of sense and is frequently done the same way on all sorts of forums that address technical issues.
As for the rest of your post, it seems you are really bitter at any criticism of Apple from people who own their products but want to try and have them improved so they are better products. I don't understand why this is such a problem.