Apple, Google, AT&T Respond To the FCC Over Google Voice 326
We've recently been following the FCC's inquiry into Apple's rejection of the Google Voice app. Apple, Google, and AT&T have all officially responded to the FCC's questions: Apple says they haven't actually rejected the app, they're just continuing to "study it," and that it may "alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging, and voicemail." The interesting bits of Google's response seem to have been redacted, but they talk a little about the approval process for the Android platform. AT&T claims it had "no role" in the app's rejection and notes that there are no contractual provisions between the two companies for the consideration of individual apps. Reader ZuchinniOne points out a report in The Consumerist analyzing some of the statements made in these filings, as well as TechCrunch's look into the veracity of their claims.
"Over" Google Voice? (Score:5, Funny)
If they're all communicating via Google Voice, then the app clearly works, so this whole issue is moot. Right?
Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Summary of this dupe:
Apple is the bad guy who is preventing iPhone owners from using the hottest cellphone app, Google Voice. They flat out admitted it in the FCC response. Much gnashing of teeth and hair pulling from the "Apple can do no wrong. Teh iPhone is teh best thing EVER!!! crowd".
AT&T has nothing to do with Apple's PR disaster.
Lots of screaming and crying from Apple loonies and all sorts of kooky theories trying to make Apple out to not be the culprit "Apple is lying to cover AT&T to the FCC!!!"
Android, Blackberry, and Palm owners not caring and loving Google Voice.
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Android, Blackberry, and Palm owners not caring and loving Google Voice.
As a G1 owner who happily uses GV on a daily basis, I have to say you're dead on about that "not caring" part.
Re:Dupe Summary: Apple Is The Bad Guy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In fact, they don't care so much that they're making slashdot posts about it!
Well, this is Slashdot. I don't have to care to post on something, especially in a forum where anything remotely anti-Apple generates so many entertaining responses.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on google, throw me a bone here
Re:The Steve Jobs method of living? (Score:5, Funny)
1) Be abusive generally.
2) Get cancer.
3) Lie about Google Voice.
4) Die?
5) Ascend to heaven in a fiery chariot.
6) Prophet!
Re:The Steve Jobs method of living? (Score:5, Funny)
Pssh... keep up. It's iProphet.
This is for you, fucking fanboi... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate the arguments that Microsoft is evil for some reason, but when Apple does the same, it is perfectly fine (e.g. activation of Windows vs. activation of an iPhone, or how Intel had unique identifiers in their chips accessible by software, but when they do the same in the iPhone - not a problem).
I hate the arguments that Microsoft is evil when 10 year old hardware is not supported (such as when Vista was released), but when Apple cuts support for 3 year old printers in Leopard, it is the user's fault for not owning the latest hardware.
I hate the arguments that problems with 3rd party hardware drivers it is the fault of Microsoft, but when Apple has problems with 3rd party hardware drivers, it is the hardware manufacturer's fault.
I hate the arguments that Apple never has any problems, but when a problem appears (such as not being able to activate a phone for hours), the user is at fault for not knowing the proper way of using a Mac, just plain stupid, or hate.
I hate the arguments when Microsoft services go down for an hour or two (such as Zune last week), it is said Microsoft provides horrible service and it is a Engadget front page mockery of Microsoft. But when iTunes goes down (http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/07/itunes-store-and-app-store-problems/) nothing is said, and it really is not a problem.
I hate the argument that before the iPhone, the number of applications available for a platform does not make a difference, it is the quality of the software. After the iPhone is released, all that matters is the number of applications available.
I hate the argument that somehow Apple hardware will last forever, but other computers last only a year or two (this argument is used in this very article). I am typing on a 5 year old Dell laptop, how long does an iPod last?
I hate the argument that somehow Microsoft limits user choice, when many people use non-Microsoft products. But when Apple limits choice (such as installing alternative browsers on an iPhone), it is in the user's best interest.
I hate the arguments that Microsoft keeps control over their products, but you need to jump through hoops just to develop for the iPhone.
I hate the arguments that Microsoft releases poor products that do not work and you need to wait for SP2 for it to be useful, is MobileMe working yet?
I hate the arguments that Microsoft does not deliver what was promised, Apple is just now delivering push notification - a year after it was promised.
I hate how some say everything was invented, created, designed, or innovated by Apple first, and everybody creates cheap knock-offs of Apple, when there is proof of it being done years before by other companies.
I hate the arguments that products such as Tablets, Netbooks, etc. are useless crap, but rumored products such as the Apple Tablet, or Netbook will be the savior of man.
I hate the argument that somehow opening a store, something that has existed for 1000s of years since somebody found they could trade a basket of vegetables for a chicken, is an Apple creation, and from now on no other company is permitted to open stores.
And, among the many others (but the last I will list), I hate the argument that somehow Apple is allowed to air commercials that lie about Microsoft and Apple's own products, but when Microsoft airs commercials that are true (a Windows computer is lower priced than an Apple computer), somehow Microsoft is evil and must stop now.
the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that the whole point of iphone apps?
Re:the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple does have a "distinctive experience" but at a huge cost, like a Lexus or Acura or Chrysler vehicle. Apple charges me around $100 each year to upgrade my G4 Mac from 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, whereas Microsoft charged me *nothing* to upgrade from XP to XP-SP1 to SP2 to SP3. Over the last seven years using Wintel OS has been free, where using Apple's OS has been costly.
You see:
Some of us are trying to save money. We care about using aps like Google Voice which help save some cash, and Apple's blocking of this money-saving feature really pi - [bkspc] [bkspc] [bkspc] - annoys me.
Re:the point (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end, I suspect that iPhone users will get access to Google Voice: Apple's just taking a little too much heat on this one, and GV is just too cool. Sorry, fanboys, Apple does not have a monopoly on being way-cool. Alternatively, of course, AT&T could offer something functionally identical to Google Voice
The irony there being that the old AT&T was originally broken up, in part, because they weren't offering consumers enough new products and services. It took a Google to come along and start shaking things up, and not for the first time I might add.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a huge back lash against Apple evidenced on this page, so much rubbish being talked, and modded up to 5. The Microsoft bloggers are earning there free laptops today.
Apple isn't perfect, but a lot of the smack talk being spoken here isn't the problem.
Apple release a new version of there OS every year, the next one will cost $29 to upgrade. You don't have to, just as you don't need to move from XP to Vista, as many of us haven't.
So you have your phone that you want, congrats. Who gives a fuck. Nobody
Re:the point (Score:5, Informative)
Windows 95 -> 98 -> NT -> 2000 -> XP are all separate products one pays for. They are all Windows.
OS X 2 3 4 and 5 are all seperate products one pays for. They are all OS X (10)
This is patently absurd on multiple levels. The time period's don't line up, and the Windows sequence you illustrated is nonsense.
First, you are mixing two separate windows lines. NT4 came out in 96, it its absurd that people would have "upgraded" from Windows 98 to NT, and because of their separate functions few if anyone upgraded from NT to 98 either. Perhaps you meant ME? But that's irrelevant, practically nobody upgraded from 98 to ME, nor had any reason to. ME was only released because 2000 wasn't ready for the home market. So at best people went from 98 to ME or 2000 but not through both. But most went straight from 98 to XP, and only got ME new if it was on a PC released in that window between ME and XP.
Realistically, from 95 to XP you upgraded twice: Either you went from NT4-2K-XP or 95-98-XP. Because the average lifespan of a PC is 3-4 years, most people NEVER paid to upgrade at all, and just got the new version on their new PC.
Second, the reality is that ALL the above windows happened before OSX10.2 was even released. To take Windows back to 95 you HAVE to go back to 95 with MacOS. That means in addition to 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, you have to count: System 7. MacOS8, MacOS8.5, MacOS9, OSX 10.0 & OSX 10.1. That's 10 versions of the Apple OS in the same time frame as Microsoft had 3. Now, the same hardware cycle applies to OSX to Mac's as PCs, and indeed there is simply no way to run OSX10.5 on a PC that ran System 7. But still, that's enough releases to essentially require you to upgrade your OS every year that you don't replace your Mac. Granted you can skip the odd release, but Apple is a lot more demanding about having current software. Windows 2000 is just now falling off the wagon for being supported by new software... how much new software will run on OS9? Or even 3 versions later 10.2?
Bottom line, MS really HAS given us a relatively free ride the last 7 years with XP, while Apple has released several paid upgrades in that time frame. No point in trying to dispute it.
However, that ride is over, as Vista was a paid upgrade, as is Windows 7, so the comparisons start balancing out again. And who knows when Windows 8(or whatever they'll call it) will be out, or whether we'll get another 5+ years of good support and free service packs. We might see that again, we might not, but I think we all expect 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.X(?) to keep coming out like clockwork.
So you CAN make a good argument against comodore64_love, but yours was not a good argument.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So to sum up your post.
Microsoft likes to update rarely. This results in them having horrifically outdated products like Windows XP, while apple has Mac OS X 10.4. Internet Explorer 6, while firefox has 2.0 out, and apple has safari 3 out, etc.
Conclusion:
You can pay a bit more to apple, and have reasonably cutting edge, high quality stuff.
You can pay a bit less to microsoft, and have a bit out dated stuff that mostly works very well, but sometimes is an utter cotastrophe (ME and IE 6, I'm looking at you).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So to sum up your post.
Microsoft likes to update rarely. This results in them having horrifically outdated products...
Except that Microsoft did release several free service packs, so the OS wasn't really nearly as stale as the release dates might imply.
And while Apple does release paid updates often, they often drag their feet as bad as Microsoft. Java updates for example tend to seriously lag. Hardware support for cutting edge hardware also tends to lag badly (video cards for example). And so on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That list of web browsers is, to put it nicely, wrong.
Browser release dates:
Internet Explorer 7: 2006 October 18 (Windows)
Firefox 2.0: 2006 October 24 (multi-platform), 2007 October 18 (OS X 10.5)
Safari 3: 2007 October 26 (OS X), 2008 March 18 (Windows)
Yes, that's right, the first Safari 3
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom line, MS really HAS given us a relatively free ride the last 7 years with XP, while Apple has released several paid upgrades in that time frame. No point in trying to dispute it.
A free ride atop a glacier. The only reason the "upgrades" (i.e., service packs, i.e., bug fixes, the occasional device support (such as WPA), and, as far as user-visible improvements go, the Security Center) were free is that they weren't part of a sufficiently upgraded system.
Apple doesn't charge for their bug fixes either. What they do, however, is make large improvements more quickly than MS, and charge for those (*much* less, actually, than MS charges for their OS's). In fact, MS's quickest OS upgrade
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it a bit odd that PC users are complaining that Apple improves their system too quickly.
As a linux user I find this statement odd, as a heavy CLI user I still find their system nearly unusable in it's default state, I mean hell you guys only got wget in 10.5
On brief examination of snow leopard though, I can't see any improvements that I wouldn't call minor. gui refinements? nice but superfluous. 64-bit addressing space? welcome to 2003 or so for linux, and 2005 or so for windows.Cups updated? looks more like a service pack than something major to me.
Nothing at all wrong with that, but to say t
Re:the point (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very strange, isn't it? The unashamed Apple bashing continues in true Slashdot style.
Not really. A lot of us (myself included) don't like Apple very much. Others (myself included) don't really like Microsoft very much. Regardless, when Microsoft is being correctly slammed for yet another gaffe, you don't see legions of Windows users rising up to defend them. So ... is Apple is being bashed unfairly? No, not really. See, Apple needs to ride on its merits (and sink on its failures) just as much as Microsoft or any other company does. The difference here is that pretty much nobody spends an incredible amount of effort defending Microsoft from its numerous detractors and point-blank denying their many screwups.
Put it this way: Microsoft is a fucked up company in many ways. Nobody with half a brain would argue otherwise. Realistically though, so is Apple is its own inimitable way. Can't hardly be anything else, this being America and given the way publicly-held corporations are required to behave under U.S. law. The fact that Apple's fanbase is so irrational on the subject is more an indication of defects in their character and/or critical thinking skills than those who are doing the bashing.
Matter of fact, if Apple's user base wasn't so goddamn hypocritical about the whole thing, us non-Apple people wouldn't give Apple a damn. But this eternal state of denial just gets old after a while. Too many Apple users are like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
King Arthur: Your bloody arm's off!
Black Knight: No it's not.
Truth is, they keep the flames alive because they just won't admit when Apple is wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you buy an iPhone and you jailbreak it.
Since you did not do so, you have other reasons for not wanting an iPhone. But don't pretend they are technical because at the core they are not.
Perhaps they were legal -- Apple has claimed jailbreaking is against the law.
Re:Talk about bias! (Score:5, Informative)
Citation?
Apple has claimed that Psystar's selling of OS X on non-Apple hardware is illegal. I don't recall them claiming jailbreaking is illegal.
Here you go [eff.org].
Apple's arguments here are probably bullshit, as the article notes. But I wouldn't fault anyone for skipping the iPhone because of this, when there are plenty of other phones that are designed to run arbitrary code and whose manufacturers won't call you a criminal for doing so.
Re:Talk about bias! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, sort of. This is a document where Apple is arguing about changes to the DMCA and is not a statement of policy.
That doesn't make any sense. Apple wasn't arguing that the DMCA should be changed to make jailbreaking illegal; they were claiming that jailbreaking is illegal under the DMCA and under plain old copyright law.
A "statement of policy" would be meaningless here anyway. Legality isn't defined by a private company's policies, it's defined by the legislature and the courts.
If this is their sole/primary objection, I fault them in the same way I fault anyone who makes a big deal out of some minor thing.
It's a "minor thing" that in order to run certain programs on your phone, you have to do something that -- according to the phone manufacturer -- is against the law?
Of course, even if Apple's interpretation of the law is correct, the chances of any individual getting sued for this is vanishingly small. But you could say the same about P2P piracy. I wouldn't fault anyone for downloading a song from Amazon instead of The Pirate Bay because of the legal risk either, even though the risk is negligible.
That's overstating things a bit much, though.
Not really: Android and Windows Mobile phones are readily available.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
your bias is showing. ...I just wanted a powerful smartphone that would do what I (yes, I, the customer) want it to do, without having my options limited by a company I don't particularly trust.
Then you buy an iPhone and you jailbreak it.
Right. Rather than buy a phone that will do what he needs out of the box with no extra tinkering, he should buy the one that requires him to go download some software from some l33t hax0r unofficial dev team in order for the phone to satisfy his requirements. And are you supposed to just trust that redsn0w, yellowsn0w, etc. are all created equal and don't install anything else on your phone while they're freeing you from Apple's tyranny?
I own an iPhone 3G. Will I upgrade to the 3GS? Not on your life. Thoug
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>But the updates between 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 where more like going between Win2k, XP and Vista rather than service packs.
Except the updates were more frequent than that. What Apples does is the equivalent to Microsoft charging users ~$100 each year to keep using their Windows OS, and my pockets are not so deep that I can afford to keep giving ANY company that kind of tribute.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Except that you're not required to upgrade
2) You're complaining about apple developing their OS faster than MS... Wut?
3) The updates have actually been roughly 18-24 months apart in recent history.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe you want to take a closer look at what's actually new in OS X 10.6 [apple.com] -- I'd say it's a lot more than just a cosmetic change.
I'm not going to go into the details of every major OS X revision, but you should note that the upgrade price for 10.6 from 10.5 is not the usual $ 100, but only $ 29. Apple basically says that 10.6 is what 10.5 could have been, had they had more time. 10.6 has massive changes under the hood (see above), but
That's also why 10.6 is substantially cheaper (Score:2)
Major changes in OS 10.6 are mostly cosmetic from what I can tell.
To the user, there are small changes all over the system - but also really well done exchange integration, a totally new feature.
Under the hood there are very powerful new frameworks, like Grand Central for better performance on multi-core systems.
But you're right the core system to the user does not look much different... and that's why the user sees a smaller upgrade price as well, $29.
So i'm not seeing what the major changes are from 10.x
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using a Windows OS that I bought in 2002 (XP). Upgrade costs == free.
If I tried to do the same with my initial 2002 Mac OS (10.1), I would crash and burn since nothing likes to run on it. Therefore I needed to upgrade from 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5 at a cost of ~$400.
The facts speak for themselves. Free $400
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I am always amazed at the incredibly huge number of whiners out there -- as if any of it mattered?
Yeah well I get tired of the Apple zealots trying to sell me on why Apple is better. I've been using Macs since 1991 and they are fine machines, but that's all they are - machines. I don't need the technological equivalent of Hari Krishnas knocking on my door.
When I was young I went through that phase of thinking I HAD to get everyone to use MY computer
- but I've outgrown that nonsense. It's just
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the joke is "really pi^H^H^Hannoys me."
Re: (Score:2)
There's a certain irony that you corrected me over something as trivial as using [bkspc] instead of ^H ;-)
and yet you don't even know how to use the HTML (quote) (/quote) modifiers properly.
Re:the point (Score:5, Informative)
Apple charges me around $100 each year to upgrade my G4 Mac from 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, whereas Microsoft charged me *nothing* to upgrade from XP to XP-SP1 to SP2 to SP3
That is hardly true. Upgrades once a year? 10.3 had a 1.5 year lifespan, 10.4 lasted almost 2.5 years, and 10.5 is nearing it's 2 year mark as well. Plus, the soon-to-come upgrade to 10.6 is only 29 bucks. Also, Windows service packs are minor updates, mostly for bugfixes and consolidated security patches; Apple doesn't charge for these minor updates either. All the OS X point upgrades (10.3, 10.4, 10.5) were *major* upgrades, packed with new features.
Over the last seven years using Wintel OS has been free, where using Apple's OS has been costly.
In other words, over the last seven years, Windows has not released any new features. And you're ignoring Vista, which you apparently were not forced to upgrade to; Interestingly, you weren't forced to upgrade to 10.3, 10.4 or 10.5, either. You always have the option not to buy; if you don't think the feature set of a particular release is big enough, wait for the next one, and you get double the features for the same price.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Interestingly, you weren't forced to upgrade to 10.3, 10.4 or 10.5, either.
Actually, you are. Try running Firefox or Safari on 10.2 or 10.3. You can't. Apple forces its users to upgrade by obsoleting OSes that are barely 4 years old, whereas Wintel users can still use XP without any problem (in fact you could still use 98 in many cases).
Re: (Score:2)
A Apple charges me around $100 each year to upgrade my G4 Mac from 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, whereas Microsoft charged me *nothing* to upgrade from XP to XP-SP1 to SP2 to SP3.
You're a little confused. Apple didn't charge you for 10.3.1, 10.3.2, 10.3.2, 10.3.3, 10.3.4, 10.3.5, 10.3.6, 10.3.7, 10.3.8 & 10.3.9. (aka service packs)
You bought 10.4 just as you bought XP. And you bought 10.5 just as you bought Vista.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No you are. A Mac with an OS older than about four years is basically worthless. It won't run any of the current browsers/programs, therefore forcing the user to make an expensive OS upgrade.
You're still very confused.
Four year old Mac OS would be 10.4 (Tiger) released April 2005.
10.4 is still fully supported by the latest release of Firefox as well as Apple's Safari browser.
My PPC laptop is running 10.4 and all of the apps run just fine as application developers haven't stopped supporting 10.4.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does have a "distinctive experience" but at a huge cost, like a Lexus or Acura or Chrysler vehicle. Apple charges me around $100 each year to upgrade my G4 Mac from 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, whereas Microsoft charged me *nothing* to upgrade from XP to XP-SP1 to SP2 to SP3. Over the last seven years using Wintel OS has been free, where using Apple's OS has been costly.
Only a MS fanboy can complain about a company that constantly makes huge improvements to their software.
Some of us are trying to save money. We care about using aps like Google Voice which help save some cash, and Apple's blocking of this money-saving feature really pi - [bkspc] [bkspc] [bkspc] - annoys me.
And most of us can afford the average of $75/year to keep up to date with all versions of OS X since 10.0. And some of us are willing to spend that extra $75... Wait, extra? XP, Vista and now 7 all retail for over $200. To have purchased every copy of OS X as it was released would run $674. Windows Premium would run over $800.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, some of us are trying to save money. We care
Truth about OS upgrade costs (Score:3, Informative)
Apple does release periodic "under the hood" upgrades analogous to Microsoft's Service Packs. They are free.
Apple occasionally releases major upgrades that include new software that adds major features or applications (e.g. Dashboard, Time Machin
Re:Truth about OS upgrade costs (Score:4, Insightful)
Your numbers are wrong, because if you were truly like me - budget conscious - you would not have upgraded your XP at all. I want to thank you for sharing, because I think this very accurately demonstrates my point, better than of my previous messages did:
Paid upgrades (list prices)
Mac
2001 Mac OS X 10.1 $129
2002 Mac OS X 10.2 $129
2003 Mac OS X 10.3 $129
2004 Mac OS X 10.4 $129
2007 Mac OS X 10.5 $129
Total: $643
-----
Windows
2001 Windows XP Home $149.99 (still using this same OS)
TOTAL: $150
Re:upgrade versus... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I was still using the Mac OS that I had in 2002, it would essentially be unusable. QED the wintel OS is cheaper (no money spent in 7 years) versus the Mac OS, because I had spend money to keep my Mac working.
Since my time and productivity are worth money, the amount I have saved by using Mac OS X over Windows over that same period is orders of magnitude larger than the cost of Microsoft's OS.
-b
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Chaucer came up with woot?
Awesome!
:-)
Reverse engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple says they haven't actually rejected the app, they're just continuing to "study it," and that it may "alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging, and voicemail."
So Apple is holding Google's app in limbo until they have time to reverse engineer the functionality and release it as native functionality of the iPhone?
Re: (Score:2)
That's ok with me...I tried an add-on app on my S60 phone (though admittedly not one developed by google) and the google voice stuff was like jumping through hoops when you wanted to use it. I would love it to be native functionality
Re: (Score:2)
I would love it to be native functionality
Yes, this is a classic example of why native applications are often superior to Web applications in certain areas. On my G1, using Google's integrated app, it really is seamless. I optionally have the choice to make my calls using GV, or not, which is pretty cool, on a call-by-call basis if I want. It's integrated right into the base dialer. It takes an extra two seconds or so to dial (presumably because it's calling Google's intermediate number first) and then the call goes through.
If you're on T-Mobile
Re:Reverse engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
What's there to "reverse engineer"? Apple already has a competing product, MobileMe / me.com.
The difference between Google and Apple's products is that Google's product is free and isn't tied to any particular hardware platform and works well on many devices in addition to the iPhone. Apple doesn't want to offer that kind of product because they want to tie all their products together and lock their users in.
Re: (Score:2)
What's there to "reverse engineer"? Apple already has a competing product, MobileMe / me.com.
The difference between Google and Apple's products is that Google's product is free and isn't tied to any particular hardware platform and works well on many devices in addition to the iPhone. Apple doesn't want to offer that kind of product because they want to tie all their products together and lock their users in.
Apple has an official, no-additional-cost MobileMe client for Windows. MobileMe works as effectively for Windows+Outlook+IE8 as it does on a Mac. (Which is not particularly well.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple isn't contractually required to ever give an accept/reject answer on an app submission (G)
No, but the FCC and FTC may require them to, regardless of contract.
They don't have to reverse engineer it, they can just keep it in limbo forever if they want, it's safer that way.
If Apple can't compete with Google apps on their own hardware and platform, they have already lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple isn't contractually required to ever give an accept/reject answer on an app submission (G)
Yeah they are. It took me a while to find the SDK terms, on Wikileaks, but they must approve an app or withhold approval; they can't keep it in limbo. Since there's no time frame, however, they have wiggle room, but in a dispute a court would decide what's reasonable or not. The TOS, incidentally, are ridiculously evil. For example, Apple gives themselves the explicit right to use your code to develop an app to compete with you.
Fortunately, the SDK terms are probably only binding to Apple, since they disa
FCC here we come (Score:2, Funny)
Article summary: Apple points the finger at AT&T, AT&T points the finger at Apple. All the consumer gets is the finger.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Apple points the finger at AT&T, AT&T points the finger at Apple. All the consumer gets is the finger. All the consumer gets is the finger.
Addendum:
Consumer gets angry and starts ordering Apple and AT&T products and never pays for them. Consumer gets last laugh.
Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil." (Score:5, Funny)
After bricking unlocked iPhones, kicking applications off the iPhone store that might even slightly compete with anything Apple or AT&T might vaguely think about in the far future and filing a wave of patents on basic well-known computer science, Apple Inc. today filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission declaring that it was openly adopting Evil(tm) [today.com] as a corporate policy.
"Fuck it," said Steve Jobs to an audience of soul-mortgaged thralls, "we're evil. But our stuff is sooo good. You'll keep taking our abuse. You love it, you worm. Because our stuff is great. It's shiny and it's pretty and it's cool and it works. It's not like you'll go back to Windows Mobile. Ha! Ha!"
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft was incensed at the news. "Our evil is better than anyone's evil! No-one sweats the details of evil like Microsoft! Where's your antitrust trial, you polo-necked bozo? We've worked hard on our evil! Our Zune's as evil as an iPod any day! I won't let my kids use a lesser evil! We're going to do an ad about that! I'll be in it! With Jerry Seinfeld! Beat that! Asshole."
"Of course, we're still not evil," said Sergey Brin of Google. "You can trust us on this. Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, it's not like you're going to use Windows Live Search. I mean, 'Bing.' Ha! Ha! I'm sorry, that's my 'spreading good cheer' laugh. Really."
Re: (Score:2)
At a party w/ a ton of Apple engineers, I overheard a sociopathic (There was other evidence.) Apple kernel dev trying to recruit this sweetheart Sun kernel dev:
Of course there were a ton of other, very nice Apple devs also who were nothing like that guy.
Re:Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil." (Score:4, Funny)
It was only a matter of time until people started calling apple "evil". While they were less successful, they were tolerated, and not discussed much.
Once they became successful, and started profiting - by providing value to millions of people, that particular group of "anti-success" comes out. You know - the ones that take pleasure at the sight of failure while spiting at the successful achievers in life.
Apple, and companies like them, should be applauded for the incredible achievements they have made, and the value they provide to people.
Re:Apple declares: "Fuck it, we're evil." (Score:4, Insightful)
Dinosaurs (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the RIAA, the MPAA, and other such entities, the cellular and phone companies are dinosaurs of an early technological age, and they are holding us back.
Cellular networks should, just like line-based internet access utilities, be simply network providers that sell access to their network from any standards-compliant device we want to use. Everything would just be another end-point of the Internet on a TCP/IP network, with different applications providing diverse needs: voice, video, pictures, text are nothing but data. Sell your consumers data transfer and connection capabilities and let us choose what we want to do with this access, instead of trying to profit from stupid things like SMS and infinitely complex plans: in the end, the cellular providers would benefit from this kind of system, as more uses would emerge out of the free-market system and would end up giving them more customers. Things would be simpler, access would be cheaper too. Everyone would win.
Re:Dinosaurs (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, "US mobile carriers should act more like the ones they have in the rest of the world", right?
In the last 4 years, I've been to 16 different countries on 4 continents. In every one of them -- except one -- I've had reliable, reasonably-priced access within 30 seconds of turning my phone back on after landing or crossing the border. Even in a village in freaking *Cambodia* where most people didn't even have running water, for cryin' out loud.
Except one. The US.
I have a Swedish and an Australian SIM card. Each of which cost less than US$ 10 and included a bunch of minutes and free or nearly-free (international!) texting and cheap and easy-to-get refills. Both of which "just work" every place I've tried to use them.
Except one. The US... where they want 10 times that much just for the SIM and they can't even guarantee that it'll work in both Florida and New Jersey!
(If you're curious -- Yes, I was stupid enough to lay out $100 just so I could use my phone in the US for about 10 days. And No, it did not.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately the best option is probably buying a $10-$20 tracfone (or other pay as you guy) specifically for the trip to the US.
It shouldn't be that way, of course, but typically at least then you aren't locked to specific towers, etc.
Re:Dinosaurs (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should the US cellular companies cater to people that like foreign technology? Foreign cell phones are cheaper, more numerous in options, have less features removed from the hardware via firmware, etc, etc.
The US cellular companies make their money based on contracts. When they can sell you a $50 phone for $200 without contract, or give it to you free with a two year contract, why should they change? They're extremely profitable right now. It's not in their best interests to change.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should the US cellular companies cater to people that like foreign technology?
Exactly - they should keep offering technology from American companies like Samsung [att.com], LG [att.com], Sony/Ericsson [att.com], Nokia [att.com], Blackberry [att.com] and HTC [att.com]!
Re:Dinosaurs (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like the RIAA, the MPAA, and other such entities, the cellular and phone companies are dinosaurs of an early technological age, and they are holding us back.
In Europe, you can use any phone on any carrier. You can effectively stream audio, video, and whatever else you like and the carriers don't really care. You do get unlimited 3G flat rates for under $30/month.
The only major phone that doesn't work that way? You guessed it: Apple's iPhone.
Far from freeing the US market from SIM locking and carrier lock-in, Apple is trying to export the evil of the US cellular market to Europe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Far from freeing the US market from SIM locking and carrier lock-in, Apple is trying to export the evil of the US cellular market to Europe.
By "evil" do you mean: "doesn't conform to what I want". But surely you must mean something else, because calling something "evil" just because "you don't like it" would be childish and petulant.
Introducing a business model that takes away existing freedoms (from a consumer perspective) is evil, in Google's self-defined sense. Whether I like it or not doesn't enter into the discussion. Don't Americans like freedoms?
I say this as a new iPhone owner (posting with it in fact) knowing full well not only what I was getting into, but also that things won't be improving in either Canada or the US anytime soon. I do hope the anti-consumer model doesn't get exported to the rest of the world.
"Studying the issue" (Score:2)
Apple's "End User Experience"... (Score:5, Insightful)
How could Apple possibly know what "end user experience" best suits me? If I install Google Voice, then that -IS- the end user experience I want! If Microsoft pulled that, they would get dinged for trying to push out the competition. Replace "Google Voice" with "IE" for example in Apple's reply, and "iPhone" with "Windows". This is exactly why the iPhone software environment is poison. Apple should not be allowed to decide what kind of "end user experience" I want on my hardware. Yes, if I purchased the hardware from Apple for the "hardware experience", then that means that I liked the "hardware experience" over other vendors, but that doesn't mean I like, or should be required to use their software! All "computing devices" should be "reconfigurable" using software, thats why software exists! Not to lock you into some Nazi form of "I know best what is for you" mentality. Open the devices up vendors!
Related: Buy the phone first, then choose your cell service vendor! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Enough with hardware-cell service vendor tie-up aggreements!
Re: (Score:2)
Error addendum.
Where the following line was stated:
'Replace "Google Voice" with "IE" for example in Apple's reply, and "iPhone" with "Windows".'
this should have read,
'Replace "Google Voice" with "Firefox" for example in Apple's reply, and "iPhone" with "Windows".'
Dyslexia because of thinking too fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Solution: Don't buy Apple hardware.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And, additionally, don't become one of the people who log on to Slashdot and complain about a product they don't own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't like it - don't use it.If you don't like it - don't use it.
Absolutely correct. I didn't ... so I don't.
syncing already possible (Score:2)
I don't quite understand what the big fuss is about with syncing. You can already sync iPhone contacts and calendars with Google accounts easily; see here [google.com] for how to set that up.
Google Voice doesn't need to sync Google contacts; in fact, it shouldn't, because that would conflict with the synchronization that already exists.
Karlan Mitchell (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone is lying, this is why.
1. Apple has stated that they aren't sure how the Google voice application works, is it VoIP, telephone, ect, ect
2. AT&T's contract with apple explicitly states they must be contacted when a VoIP app is being approved.
3. Both parties claim to of had not contact with each other, a violation of AT&T ToS for Apple
I smell something funny......
btw. The application is not VoIP, its a telephone route, which would cut into AT&T's outrageous international rates
for phone calls (however have no affect on local call's price); I only state the above because Apple claimed it
could possibly be VoIP (even though its easy to find information on how it works, they are just buying time)
and we know apple should of immediately contacted AT&T if this was even a possibility.
Not the reason (Score:3, Interesting)
curious situation: iphone more google than apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh, that's a funny situation for Apple to be in. I guess Apple is no longer interested in just selling you the hardware and a good OS, they want to sell you a substantial number of the applications as well. I seem to recall Microsoft engaging some similar behavior awhile back, something about web browsers and being able to remove them.
I just got an ipod touch recently (it was free with rebate) and frankly, I find that Apple is unnecessarily confining the device. I've been using their laptops and desktops for years, with OS X, I've always thought that it was an incredible benefit to them to have it run on BSD, run MS Office, run Photoshop, run X11 so I can run GIMP and just about every other linux app out there, etc. etc. etc. With the phone, they confine you so much that if it weren't for the possibility to jailbreak it, I probably would have given it away to a family member.
The point is that, as a long time Apple user, I'm really starting to get a little bothered by their increasing amount of attempts to force me to use their stuff the way they want me to rather than the way I want to use it. That sort of behavior earned MS my distrust long, long ago.
Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh, that's a funny situation for Apple to be in. I guess Apple is no longer interested in just selling you the hardware and a good OS, they want to sell you a substantial number of the applications as well.
I don't think it's about Apple wanting to see you a substantial number of apps, I think it's about Apple not wanting the core features of their phone to be based on the whims of a third party. It's kinda like the situation of Office on the Mac back in the 90's when MS threatened to kill Office which would have basically ended corporate use of Macs.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very good point, along with what the AC said below about, "What if Google really is evil?" But why didn't Apple go out and say that then? Oh wait, they did:
Re:curious situation: iphone more google than appl (Score:5, Insightful)
The GV app is still just an app. It doesn't replace any of the Apple apps. They're still there and still fully functional. What it does do is make them redundant.
Instead of giving people your cell number, you give them your Google number. At that point, all your voicemail is kept on the Google service, all your calls are routed through the Google service to whatever phone(s) you choose to have the calls go to. You are no longer tied to Apple's Visual Voicemail (which by most people's accounts hasn't worked properly in quite a while anyway) nor are you limited to AT&T's network anymore. The same applies to SMS and so on as well. Use your Google number instead of your iPhone number and you can get the messages on any/all your phones rather than just your iPhone.
The GV app also allows you to make calls out through Google's network. Your phone dials Google, then dials out from Google to where ever. With the apps on the various platforms, this is essentially transparent. You just use the dialer in the GV app instead of the Apple dialer. It doesn't sync your contacts to the Google servers as such. Like all apps on an iPhone, it has access to your contacts directly, so doesn't need to store them on the server. Not that it matters much given you can use Google Sync to do it, or even us iTunes itself.
Having said all that, the Apple phone apps are still all there and you can use those as well if you want. But if you do, CallerID will show your cell # instead of your Google number. If people call that number, you lose things like voicemail transcription features and so on.
I am basing this on the functionality in the applications on other platforms such as Android and Blackberry. I doubt the app for the iPhone would be any different in functionality, only in appearance.
But no, the app doesn't replace the Apple ones. It merely supersedes them and essentially makes them redundant.
The reason google redacted it's complaint (Score:2)
TechCrunch reality distortion field (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a completely bogus self serving argument. It's like arguing that i
Re:TechCrunch reality distortion field (Score:4, Informative)
But yeah TechCrunch's article is full of it.
No, you misunderstood the iPhone (Score:2)
I think you have misunderstood what Google Voice is. IT is NOT meant "to replace your existing phone service."
It supplants Visual Voicemail with google voice mail.
It supplants contacts.
It supplants your phone number with a different one - the idea is you forget the number attached to your phone.
So yes, in fact, it does supplant your phone service substantially from the standpoint of the phone parts of the iPhone, and from AT&T's view (even though they were not involved it seems).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:TechCrunch reality distortion field (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's position is clearly that by letting google extend their platform to the iphone they would clearly gain converts to it, but without letting apple control that environment they lose the ability to provide distinction, and maintain their competitive advantage.
Nobody is forcing users to install Google Voice. So, what you are saying is that if users have the choice, they will install Google Voice and not use Apple's services anymore.
So, you are basically saying that Apple's "competitive advantage" is in propping up an uncompetitive product (their services) with a good product (their phone hardware).
Just thought I'd put that into perspective for you.
Free SMS, calls etc.? (Score:2)
If Apple do allow Google Voice, will that effectively allow free SMS and mobile calls?
I've read polar conclusions in two different places, so I don't know what to think.
If SMS etc. through Google Voice is free, then the only charge will be for the internet access (which byte for byte, is presumably orders of magnitude cheaper than SMS).
I just don't buy it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Google Voice stands to cost AT&T money. Apple won't lose a thing by offering it-- in fact, they stand to lose iPhone sales for rejecting it when apps for it are available on competing devices. In light of this, who is more likely to be the force behind the rejection?
As for the argument Apple is putting forward, that is just BS. If I put GV on my iPhone it's because I *want* it there.
And as for AT&T's argument, "Hey, look, we allow GV on other devices on our network!"-- No, it's not that they're allowed, it's that AT&T simply can't prevent them from being installed and used. Apple is the sole (official) gatekeeper to getting an app on the iPhone and under contract with AT&T, so it's clear they're doing AT&T's bidding here. I don't know why Apple is taking the lion's share of the blame by saying they're still evaluating it, but my guess would be some sort of quid pro quo with AT&T.
The whole thing stinks, and I hope the FCC realizes it and opens a can of whoop-ass.
~Philly
PS - Please learn WTF Google Voice does before commenting. It is NOT a VoIP application despite a dozen people saying or implying it is in their posts already.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think Apple's thinking is a bit wrong-headed, but I believe that I understand the reasoning. I'd guess that it goes something like this. "The appeal of the iPhone rests upon the ease of use and integration of features like Visual Voice Mail, the Address Book, Mail, and the Phone application. Right now this is entirely under our control. What happens if everybody starts using Google's apps and bypassing ours? How will we add new features to enhance the Mail and Voice features of the iPhone? What if we add
A prediction (Score:2, Troll)
OMG! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh no! How terrible! But what if THATS WHAT THE USER WANTS?!
It's a telephone (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't the FCC rule a long time ago that the telephone company cannot place restrictions on what a customer hooks up to the phone service?
Don't tell me it's not a telephone. It is sold as a telephone and it comes with telephone service. That makes it a telephone.
That is not how Google Voice works (Score:3, Informative)
To make a Google Voice call you need phone service.
1) You tell GV what number you wish to call (dest number) at from which phone you wish to make that call (source number)
2) GV calls you at your source phone number (ie your cell phone number)
3) GV calls the destination number
4) You are now in a 3-way conference call with the source number,the destination number, and GV central
GV isn't VoIP.
It is an interesting use of a 3-way calling service.
Your GV number isn't really "your" phone number. It is more like a
Re:babies (Score:5, Insightful)
why does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device?
I invite you to study the concept of ownership. If I pay $600 for a piece of hardware, I have every right to do whatever I want with it. It's the whole point of buying hardware, honestly. If I wanted a restricted environment with no control, I'd rent my phone.
That said, AT&T should have the right to block my use of the network if they don't like what I'm doing on it, but at no point should Apple even slightly get involved. This 'walled garden' concept is harmful to consumers and developers alike.
Re: (Score:2)
... That said, AT&T should have the right to block my use of the network if they don't like what I'm doing on it...
I must disagree with you there. AT&T is/should be a neutral service provider. IPhone users pay $30 every month for *unlimited* data bandwidth. That ought to mean, although in practice providers never acknowledge and rarely accept it, that the user can use as much bandwidth as they need/want/can doing whatever they want whenever they want (and as such a neutral carrier, the provider need not even ensure that such activity is legal).
As a sidenote, does anyone know what this app does that isn't avail
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I invite you to study the concept of ownership. If I pay $600 for a piece of hardware, I have every right to do whatever I want with it.Apple even slightly get involved. This 'walled garden' concept is harmful to consumers and developers alike.
Note that you only bought a right-to-use-license that came with the hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
There's only one person that has the right to install anything they want on the device.
The owner.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they own it.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the Compaq vs IBM lawsuit over the reverse engineering of ROM-BIOS. If IBM had their way, the same company would be providing all hardware, software, and Internet service for desktop computers. You would have choices, but marketing groups would have complete control, end to end, of what technologies any given person is allowed to run on their own computers.
We are now looking at the same situation for mobile phones. Before they have gotten away with it, saying third party software might lead to pe
Re: (Score:2)
i think what im really missing is, why does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device?
Because the FCC, FTC, and DOJ regulate what Apple can do. And they do so for good reason.
get the government out of this. the government is inherently reactive and slow, technology is proactive. you've got other options
The facts are obviously different: European and Asian cellular phone markets are much more efficient, precisely because the government prevents companies like Microsoft and Apple from
Re:You have to assume Google is lying (Score:5, Informative)
The FCC redacted that part, not Google, presumably on behalf of Google because the Apple Developer Agreement makes your communications with Apple confidential (subject to law enforcement inquiries). The FCC *does* possess the redacted parts of Google's response.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The agreement with Apple requires confidentiality with regards to the app approval process.
iPhone developers are bound by contract with Apple not to make information available to the public about communications with Apple over the app review.