Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Businesses Google The Internet Apple

Apple Kills Google Voice Apps On the iPhone 541

Posted by kdawson
from the hey-wait-isn't-he-on-our-board dept.
molnarcs writes "Apple pulls Google Voice-enabled applications from its App Store, citing duplication of functionality. The move affects both Google's official Google Voice and third party apps like Voice Central. Sean Kovacs, main developer of GV Mobile, says that he had personal approval for his app from Phil Shiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, last April. TechCrunch's Jason Kincaid suspects AT&T behind the move."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Kills Google Voice Apps On the iPhone

Comments Filter:
  • Coming to Cydia (Score:4, Informative)

    by djdavetrouble (442175) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:10PM (#28858037) Homepage

    Don't worry, you can still use it with Cydia!!!

    Also on appulo.us

    • Re:Coming to Cydia (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dustwun (662589) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:35PM (#28858485) Homepage
      Google doesn't even have to do this themselves. They could simply drop the code into code.google.com and let someone else build/submit it to cydia. Then they can appear to be playing by Apple/AT&T rules, and still get their app used the way they want.
  • by xdor (1218206) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:11PM (#28858063)
    Alien vs. Predator
  • by ZackSchil (560462) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:12PM (#28858095)

    How long can Apple keep this up? The iPhone app store has been a great thing, but slam after slam of bad press against it is slowly turning the opinion of the technically inclined. If they don't do something soon, they're going to end up like Sony circa 2007.

    • by Khue (625846) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:21PM (#28858251)
      I don't know about an iPhone but this app works fantastic on my Blackberry. Every strike against Apple like this means companies like RIM get good press. They need to be careful about this type of activity. On a happy note, I recommend applying for the Beta if you have a Blackberry. It's nice using my personal 8320 for work mobile, home, and personal mobile phone.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sustik (90111)

      Can iPhone users buy the app in another store? I hope so; buying a (smart?)phone for a couple hundred dollars which can *only* run apps from a single store is not very appealing to me.

      • 1- it's a lot more than a couple hundred bucks, if you take into account the very expensive plan
        2- iPhone is very locked-in: pps can only come from tha apple store, unless you jail break it (and lose your warranty + get a chance to have it bricked on apple's next update)

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by jez9999 (618189)

        Can iPhone users buy the app in another store?

        No; but the great thing is, there's an app for that.

  • Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xpendable (1605485) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:13PM (#28858099)

    Wow, that's pretty scary. I'd hate to have developed software for a platform, only to find it removed from the platform a few months later as an anti-competitive action because the company that owns the platfrom decides to release their own versions of the same thing. That could put me out of business! And I'm sure the developer agreement with Apple gives them full rights to do this. Yikes. Well, I'm one of the few around here that doesn't have an iphone anyway.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by megamerican (1073936)

      This is going to happen with any platform is tethered. It won't matter if it is the Apple's iPhone, Amazon's Kindle or anything else. Unless the purchasers demand a change this won't stop. Don't expect any miracles.

    • Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Scootin159 (557129) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:49PM (#28858733) Homepage
      This also raises an interesting legal question - can a "platform" lock-out non-platform apps? For instance, imagine the fallout if Microsoft released a "patch" which removed all copies of Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera from user's machines. They are just a "duplication of functionality" found within IE, right?
      • Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by geekboy642 (799087) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:34PM (#28859395) Journal

        Geeks would scream bloody murder. My parents wouldn't even notice. The EU would slap MS with another "giant" fine. The US *might*, possibly, bring suit against them. Said suit would last 8 years and resolve with a series of fines and injunctions against certain vaguely-defined anti-competitive behaviors. Meanwhile MS would still retain control over 3/4 of the OS and office apps market.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:13PM (#28858115)

    Why on earth geeks continue to view Apple as a Good Company boggles my mind. They've shown themselves time and time again to be evil, controlling, and dedicated to being as closed as possible. This is just the latest in a long, long line of anti-customer things they've done. Why do people continue to support this behavior?

    • by Arimus (198136) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:17PM (#28858173)

      Why on earth geeks continue to view Apple as a Good Company boggles my mind.

      Wny on earth **some** geeks would be more accurate.

      I'm a geek I'd guess by most definitions and while I own and like my ipod touch I do not think Apple, Google, Microsoft et al are good 'companies' in the sense you mean. All companies, if they wish to remain in buisness, have just one goal: make the most money they can out of each individual customer.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Apple has Good PR. They are a "Good" Company in that respect?
    • by mcgrew (92797) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:28PM (#28858377) Homepage Journal

      I don't think it's so much "A Good Company" as "A company that makes well designed, albeit expensive, products." If I had the cash my PC would be a mac and my phone would be an iPhone... at least, if I could use anybody but AT&T with the iPhone. That's a bigger hurde than the cost.

      I don't dislike Microsoft because of their business practices; I dislike Microsoft because I don't like the way they design most of their products. YMMV as always.

      • by greenbird (859670) * on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:10PM (#28859051)

        I don't dislike Microsoft because of their business practices; I dislike Microsoft because I don't like the way they design most of their products.

        And Apple designs their products such that they are owned and controlled completely by Apple even after you've bought them from Apple. You consider that a good design? I consider that just like Microsoft. Apple's may be a bit easier to use but they suffer from the same primary flaw. You have no control over them.

        The only reason I can see for buying an Apple product is that they have excellent marketing. They do a fantastic job of luring in the mindless masses who don't have the wherewithal to actually think through the consequences of their purchases. When I buy something I want to control it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by novakreo (598689)

          And Apple designs their products such that they are owned and controlled completely by Apple even after you've bought them from Apple. You consider that a good design?

          Okay, I'll bite. You have a point regarding the iPhone, but how is an Apple computer owned or controlled by Apple after purchase? Nothing stops you from installing whatever applications or operating system(s) you want.

  • by akcpe (1438869) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:18PM (#28858195)
    So.. I'm a little confused here. There's all sorts of talk about Google Voice competing with the iPhone (at least on some other news sites that have published this) Not sure I understand the comparison. Google Voice for phone calls uses at&t minutes, which don't cost Apple. Its simply call forwarding. This is not VOIP folks. Google Voice SMS doesnt cost Apple either. There are PLENTY of other free SMS apps on the App Store already, why not Google Voice? Voicemail transcriptions surely don't duplicate functionality of either Apple or at&t. As far as alternative visual voicemail, again there are already apps on the App Store for that. (ie. YouMail). Can someone please enlighten me how this is due to Google trying to compete with Apple, or even at&t?
    • by introspekt.i (1233118) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:24PM (#28858315)

      Google Voice for phone calls uses at&t minutes, which don't cost Apple.

      Yes but using Google voice to make international calls would be way cheaper than making a phone call on your cell phone with AT&T. At the moment, the iPhone isn't just the device, it's also the infrastructure that supports the iPhone (which you pay gobs for). Google voice offers services that compete with AT&T and the iPhone infrastructure in ways big enough to hurt the bottom line of AT&T, which as you can see from other comments at the least, made this app go pouf disappear.

    • by bennomatic (691188) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:45PM (#28859533) Homepage
      Ah, but you can use Google Voice to do text messaging, and if you configure it right, those messages never go through AT&T's SMS system, so they can't charge you for them.

      SMS is gold, especially when they can charge you--what is it?--$10/mo for 500 texts. They don't want to lose that by having your SMS data going over the flat-rate data plan. You know, because SMS data are not bits like the 3G network bits, no way they could ever change that. Except, of course, Google has.

      I love all the Apple bashing; I'm sure Apple could care less, but AT&T sees a threat, and for the time being, they're the exclusive provider and they set at least some of the rules.

      Just the other day, the CEO of AT&T indicated that he knew which way the wind was blowing, and that he didn't expect the lucrative exclusive deal to last forever; you'd think that they'd try a little harder to make iPhone users *want* to stay with AT&T...
  • It was AT&T (Score:5, Informative)

    by vertigoCiel (1070374) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:19PM (#28858203)
    According to Jon Gruber, who has reliable sources inside Apple, AT&T pulled their weight to make this happen [daringfireball.net].
    • SMS, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dan East (318230) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:48PM (#28858729) Homepage Journal

      Google voice provides unlimited incoming AND outgoing SMS for free. I've been using it on my blackberry because I have unlimited data, but no SMS plan (costs me 25 cents to send a single message). I'm not familiar with the AT&T plans, but if SMS packages are optional add-ons then they would certainly lose money as people realize they have unlimited texting through their google phone number.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537)

      This isn't too surprising. At the time the App store was announced, there were vague implications that one of the major reason Apple wanted approval over applications (beyond issues like maintaining battery life, stability, user experience) was that AT&T wanted to control what was and wasn't allowed.

      It was stated outright at launch that VOIP apps that allowed use over the cell networks wouldn't be allowed at all. It was implied that tethering applications and IM clients (which compete with SMS) would

    • Re:It was AT&T (Score:4, Insightful)

      by recoiledsnake (879048) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:50PM (#28859587)

      Why doesn't Apple just get a list of phone uses that AT&T doesn't like and put them in the dev agreement for the SDK? Just state that any apps involving voice, or tethering etc. are banned. That way developers don't waste their time and money making such apps.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Dachannien (617929)

      Okay, so AT&T tells Apple to ban an iPhone app that provides a competing service.... would any antitrust lawyers out there mind explaining to me exactly what part of this isn't illegal under antitrust law?

  • by sean.peters (568334) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:19PM (#28858207) Homepage
    ... the App Store sucks. This is yet another example of why it's bad that for a given platform, you are required to get your software from a manufacturer approved repository. Don't get me wrong, repositories are great. But not if you're forced to use them, and especially not when the repository owner manipulates the software selection to suit themselves. I smell an anti-competitive lawsuit in the making here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by recoiledsnake (879048)

      ... the App Store sucks. This is yet another example of why it's bad that for a given platform, you are required to get your software from a manufacturer approved repository. Don't get me wrong, repositories are great. But not if you're forced to use them, and especially not when the repository owner manipulates the software selection to suit themselves. I smell an anti-competitive lawsuit in the making here.

      You forgot the forced nice 30% cut of whatever the developer gets.

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:20PM (#28858225)

    So if AT&T can get an app banned (as Gruber [daringfireball.net] says is the case), what happens later on when the iPhone is not tied to any one phone company in the U.S.? Carrier specific stores? That smells like the stuff people dislike about Verizon... but Apple can't let multiple companies triangulate on what apps they like.

    Also interesting is that AT&T seems to allow some apps on other phones they move to keep off the iPhone, it could be because there are just so many more iPhones on AT&T they are really worried about the data load (which would explain why Slingbox is WiFi only on the iPhone but works over 3G on the blackberry).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mcgrew (92797)

      So if AT&T can get an app banned (as Gruber says is the case), what happens later on when the iPhone is not tied to any one phone company in the U.S.?

      Then I'll buy one. AT&T is about the only thing that keeps me from an iPhone.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cabjf (710106)
      I bet that kind of veto power by AT&T is written into their contract. Once the exclusivity is up, I would also bet they need a new contract. At that point Apple can either stipulate less control from AT&T or take their phones to another provider, or both. Their strategy in the cell market seems to be similar to the music store market. They started out giving in to those that held the power, then after they grew their market share more than anyone thought they would, the tables turned.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mini me (132455)

      The iPhone already has carrier specific stores in a sense; by country. Netshare has already shown us that AT&T calls the shots for all carriers. Rogers, for example, at the time, allowed tethering on all of their data plans. There is no reason why the app should not have been in the Canadian store, even if AT&T wanted it pulled from the U.S. market.

  • by GimpyE (1607443) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:20PM (#28858227)
    Apple, making Android look good since 2008.
    • by scorp1us (235526) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:26PM (#28859269) Journal
      As an iPhone fan boy, I am not under the impression that the iPhone is the end-all-be-all for all time. I only think it is the end-all-be-all for the duration of my contract. I am eagerly awaiting the day when I can get an Android or Qt-based phone. But even if they are available, I might stick with Apple. Apple can get away with the AppStore BS because they have market momentum. But as these stories proliferate, developers will become wary and port to other platforms. Apple will then be forced to let go, or let the market slip away. In the end I will win, iPhone or not because competition will always ensure my next phone is better. I want Android and Nokia to make my iPhone suck, because Apple will be forced to do better. I think this is why they may be making a tablet that isn't bundled to a carrier. It gets them out of the phone market, but keeps them in the mobile market space. Leave the phones to the phone companies, let Apple focus on computers.
  • by Late Adopter (1492849) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:21PM (#28858249)

    Sean Kovacs, main developer of GV Mobile, says that he had personal approval for his app from Phil Shiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, last April.

    If this bit is true and documented, then sue for lost development time. Apple gave assurances they wouldn't do something, Google committed resources, then Apple did it. Whatever Apple's reasoning here for changing their minds, they can't yank the football away any more than a contest promoter could decide not to give awards to a winner.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dkf (304284)

      Sean Kovacs, main developer of GV Mobile, says that he had personal approval for his app from Phil Shiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, last April.

      If this bit is true and documented, then sue for lost development time. Apple gave assurances they wouldn't do something, Google committed resources, then Apple did it. Whatever Apple's reasoning here for changing their minds, they can't yank the football away any more than a contest promoter could decide not to give awards to a winner.

      Sounds to my (admittedly untrained) ear like a time to apply the legal doctrine of estoppel [wikipedia.org], especially promissory estoppel. If I was Google, I'd be looking to recover as much as possible from Apple here, or (better yet) force the app down their throat, as that would vastly annoy both Apple and AT&T.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Eil (82413)

      "Personal approval" is rather different than a legally enforceable contract.

      Getting your app shot down without rhyme or reason is the danger any iPhone developer faces. Not only does it lock out open source, but it locks out commercial development as well because nobody wants to face that risk. Eventually, the only people who will be developing iPhone apps are "bottom-feeders" who spend about an hour whipping up some trivial crap and then putting it up for sale hoping that once in a while, somebody will acc

  • by hodet (620484) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:21PM (#28858257)
    I bought mine in 2004 and I have to pull out the antenna to use it. Works great and only costs me like $10/month. I don't get all the hype with cell phones these days. I have a BB at work and i would never pay the outrageous fees to own one myself. As for developers, are there not other platforms that can be profitable for you that don't have Sybil as the gatekeeper. Why would you subject yourself to the stress.
  • Sigh...TechCrunch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by basementman (1475159) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:22PM (#28858279) Homepage

    TechCrunch is citing AT&T is behind it, yet they have absolutely no evidence to indicate that. It is in both Apples and AT&Ts interest to keep the Google Voice app off the iPhone. TechCrunch is just blaming AT&T so they can keep their Apple fanboyism going.

  • Breakup (Score:5, Funny)

    by gailrob (937536) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:22PM (#28858285)

    Apple: Look, you're suffocating me, we need to take a break.

    Google: What's wrong baby? We were doing so well together!

    Apple: I TOLD YOU! I JUST NEED SOME SPACE! YOUR APPS ARE ALL OVER MY ROOM!

    Google: Fine... Don't come crying to me when your MAPS stop working!

    • Re:Breakup (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LodCrappo (705968) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @08:24PM (#28860893) Homepage

      An interesting point.. perhaps Google should cut off all iphone users from Google services such as search, maps, gmail, etc. etc.
      Truth is that many things iphone users like to do come from google, not apple.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cbhacking (979169)

        You forgot possibly the biggest one: YouTube. Without Flash, the iPhone has to go though another API to access YouTube videos. What if Google decided that it wasn't in their best interest to support that access (or specifically changed it to block iPhones/iTouches)?

        Yeah, not going to happen. Still, it would be mildly hilarious, and they could do it.

  • by Tridus (79566) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:27PM (#28858371) Homepage

    It's always nice when companies go and make the case for why closed platforms suck with no effort required on anybody elses part. Apple is just another example. Having a gatekeeper say what you can and can't run on your phone like this was never a good idea, and now we're seeing why.

    Apple fanboys will put up with anything, of course. I hope this type of nonsense gets through to the more sensible people out there though.

  • by dzym (544085) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:28PM (#28858393) Homepage Journal

    I'm sure it's occurred to more than a few of us that citing "duplication of functionality" is a gigantic fucking can of worms.

    And Apple opened it.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:29PM (#28858397) Homepage

    In a word? NO. Apple+AT&T are clearly operating under their own agenda and any agreements, past, present and future, are subject to change without notice or compensation. You will not be able to depend on them any more than you can depend on Amazon not to delete your books from your Kindle.

    This is a risk of putting yourself under the control of companies like these -- they might seem cool now, but are quite subject to change without notice or compensation. The only protection anyone might enjoy is legislative or judicial relief. We have had such relief in the past and it has worked well for "we the people." We seriously need to break the agreement between AT&T and Apple as well as other handset exclusivity agreements along with all manner of other problems associated with mobile phone technologies.

    The continuous merging and dealing among technology companies are in need of deeper scrutiny as at every turn they seem to limit or control technological advancement for their own anti-competitive and price-controlling purposes.

  • by Whuffo (1043790) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:42PM (#28858617) Homepage Journal
    Google Voice (Grand Central rebranded) is a wonderful service. Not for the reason many tout - its bevy of useful features. It's incredibly valuable because it provides a virtual phone number which redirects to whatever phone number you have now. Change carriers or move out of their service area? No problem; just change the forwarding phone number in GV and anyone who calls your GV number still is calling you.

    This is something that is also valuable with email - Mail.com used to offer free redirection for life but they've since gone back on their promise and now charge for their service. Imagine having an email address that is yours forever - one that simply redirects mail to whatever account you currently have. Change providers? No problem; change your address at the redirector and nobody has to change the email address they reach you at.

    Anyone who has changed phone numbers or email addresses knows what a hassle it can be - these redirection services provide a solution to this problem.

    Hey, AT&T and Apple - what me, a customer, wants is to have a phone number and email address that is mine - one that will be mine for as long as I want - no matter if my email or phone provider changes or goes out of business. That's what Google Voice provides and AT&T does NOT. Phone number portability is largely a joke as anyone who's tried to keep a phone number knows. Portability doesn't help if you move to a different area code, anyway.

    Phone companies like to lock in their customers - one of the ways they do this is through the fear they instill in their customers. If you change providers, you'll have to tell everyone you know that you've got a new phone number. Rather than deal with that nuisance, people accept yet another fee increase and stay with the same provider. This isn't customer service at all - it's corporate service where they inconvenience you to insure that the corporation makes more money. That's why they sabotage "portability" in any way they can - and it's why AT&T doesn't want Google Voice on the IPhone.

    And they'd really prefer that you didn't realize that if your phone number is in one area code and your Google Voice phone number is in a different area code that you could be receiving local calls from a much larger area. In areas like Silicon Valley this can make a huge difference in the ability of people to contact you.

    Stuff like this is why I do not have an IPhone - it's a nice piece of hardware but since it's tied to AT&T it's not for me. I got away from AT&T years ago and never looked back.
  • by rennerik (1256370) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @04:53PM (#28858797)
    As TFA mentions, Apple pushed the recording industry to accept the $0.99/track, even when they weren't happy about it. When the iPhone was being developed, and Apple was shopping around for a carrier, AT&T made a significant amount of concessions that other carriers would never have made: modify the voice mail system, lack of network branding on the phone, complete control by Apple over the design of the phone, etc. It can be said that a lot of this would not have been possible without Steve Jobs at the helm, with his influence and charisma telling these other companies that *they've* got to work *with* Apple, not the other way around, if they want a slice of the pie.

    Now it seems AT&T is walking all over Apple and Apple is just letting them. Is it because Jobs is absent from the spotlight, and he's lost his influence? What is going on that makes them cower in the corner and submit to AT&T? If anything, it should be the other way around. AT&T would be *nothing* without the iPhone, and Apple would be able to go to any other carrier and have them begging at their feet (contracts notwithstanding).

    On a completely different note, I wonder when this sort of thing will stop? Carriers have finally let handset developers do what they want, because they realized that companies like Nokia and Palm and Apple make better phones than Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile does, and that they shouldn't inject themselves into the process. This is all thanks to Apple. But these networks are still protective of their cashflow model, trying to use their relative exclusivity and propriety to keep relatively cheap methods of communication off. They charge for SMSes, even though these things actually, *literally* don't cost them anything (the packets in which SMSes are sent are sent or received regardless of whether or not there's an SMS in there) -- especially US carriers. The cost of text messaging in the US far outweighs any other market, for no reason other than it's a million dollar cash cow annually. They keep the Internet crappy, slow, and unreliable so that users can't use it to do anything important, other than get email or browse Facebook, because God forbid you should be able to make a phone call... then that keeps them from charging you $0.40/min when you go over your minutes; or charging you exorbitant monthly fees for voice time. When will all of this change?

    Something has to remove their stranglehold over the industry. I get that they want to protect their business model, but they've had it for close to 40 years now in one form or another, and they're stifling change and innovation. And I suppose we can only hope that by doing this, new players will come to market that will be the death knell for the old timers that can't or won't change. And technically, we don't even need a player; all we need is one of the current players to change their tune. Remember the unlimited plans? None of them had it until T-Mobile or Sprint (not sure which) introduced it, and then suddenly everyone jumped on the boat. The first company took an awful big risk to do something like that, but in the end, it paid off.

    Let's hope it happens again.
  • by QuoteMstr (55051) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:14PM (#28859093)

    I can install anything I want with no DRM whatsoever. I can even ssh into the phone. The applications are written in plain old Javascript, even the built-in ones, so they can be trivially modified. The Pre is a hacker's dream phone.

    It'll be a cold day in hell before I use a closed phone again.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      What's even worse is that iPhone is the only platform that's locked down as bad. All other platforms are open - not just Pre and Android, but also Symbian and WinMo (okay, you might have to shell out some money for a certificate to sign binaries on Symbian, but they won't refuse you one because of "duplicate functionality"). We had an established tradition of open mobile platforms, and Apple is aggressively trying to change it for the worse now (and use the market success of iPhone to drive that). That's wh

  • Next test: Spotify! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by itsdapead (734413) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:22PM (#28859221)

    Interesting test coming up in EU/UK: the "iTunes killing" streaming music service Spotify has announced that they've submitted their client app for the iPhone/iPod Touch to Apple. Cannily, they've got this all over the press [bbc.co.uk] which must have rather put Apple on the spot(ify).

    Spotify is nothing revolutionary but its well executed, easy to use and has a pretty good range of music from pop to classical (minus the usual digital hold-outs: Floyd etc.) and seems to have been very well marketed (starting with a Google style not-very-exclusive invitation/introduction system). Its been getting to quite a wide audience (not your usual pop download monkeys). If Apple reject this, then the App Store issue is going to be News in Europe. Could be fun.

    Looks like mobile apps are part of their business model: the basic desktop service is free with (not too bad) ads or 10 quid a month for ad-free, but you're going to have to subscribe to use the mobile version. That'd probably put me off, but we shall see...

  • Apple is truly Evil (Score:3, Informative)

    by DiSKiLLeR (17651) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:33PM (#28859373) Homepage Journal

    Apple is truly evil these days.

    What's sad is all sense and reason totally falls away when it comes to Apple.

    Everyone bitches about Microsoft, but as soon as Apple does it, ohhh its all okay! Its okay BECAUSE ITS APPLE!

    WTF people...

  • by presidenteloco (659168) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @05:55PM (#28859661)

    The carriers think that voice is different than data.

    The Internet (and service providers like Google / Skype etc) think that
    voice is just another kind of data. (Though a bit of priority for the
    packets to reduce latency would be splendid.)

    This is just a replay of the old Bellhead vs Nethead battle.

    I'm pretty sure the Netheads are going to win eventually, by the
    logic of the usefulness of having general data networking to every
    device.

    But there will be much gnashing of teeth between here and there.

  • by bgalbrecht (920100) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @06:28PM (#28860015)
    Apple's new advertising slogan.
  • by goffster (1104287) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @06:52PM (#28860255)

    That might get it's attention.

  • by Anachragnome (1008495) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @07:58PM (#28860727)

    I am using a 6 yr. old computer, a 6 year old cell phone and a basic flat-screen TV w/ a $99 cheapo surround system.

    And I'm just as happy with the results today as I was 6 yrs. ago when I bought most of it.

    I just don't understand why people subject themselves to the BULLSHIT these companies impart on their customers just for a few SMALL incremental improvements in service. I won't even get into how much more money it would have cost me to stay "caught up" with so-called "improvements".

  • by amiga3D (567632) on Tuesday July 28, 2009 @08:40PM (#28860981)
    The only problem with the iPhone...is apple. I swear I love everything about it...it's beautiful. If only apple would quit trying to kill it.

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.

Working...