Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Government Apple News

Google, Apple Joust Over Rejected Voice App 228

Posted by Soulskill
from the somebody's-in-trouble dept.
ZipK writes with an update to last month's FCC inquiry that landed Apple and AT&T in hot water over the apparent rejection of a Google Voice app for the iPhone. All three companies submitted statements to the FCC — Apple claimed the app hadn't been rejected at all, that they were simply "studying" it further. The public version of Google's statement contained a redacted section, which they politely referred to as "sensitive," but after seeing Apple's comments, they decided to reveal the entire document. Google's FCC filing directly contradicts what Apple said: "Apple's representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality." (PDF, page 4.) Apple quickly released a statement reiterating that they did not reject the app.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google, Apple Joust Over Rejected Voice App

Comments Filter:
  • Why doesn't Google immediately release Google Voice to Cydia/Icy? (Yes, I know that Google will release a web-only version of Google voice, but a built in version has the advantage that all of the GUI pages are permanently cached.) I would download and install it in an instant!

    Apple has already shown bad faith towards Google in iTunes App Store, why should Google care if it hurts Apple's feeling but supporting App Store alternatives? Google already supports Mobile Terminal [google.com] Google code project for jail b
    • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @08:51AM (#29482405) Homepage Journal

      Google already supports Mobile Terminal Google code project for jail broken iPhones/iTouches, so the precedent is there.

      Just because an app is hosted on Google Code doesn't mean that Google officially supports or endorses it. Google Code is similar to Sourceforge: they accept virtually any and all projects that are licensed under an OSI-approved license.

    • by fooslacker (961470) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @09:27AM (#29482457)

      Why doesn't Google immediately release Google Voice to Cydia/Icy? (Yes, I know that Google will release a web-only version of Google voice, but a built in version has the advantage that all of the GUI pages are permanently cached.) I would download and install it in an instant!.

      The short answer is because they're big and can afford to make a point. The long answer is that they likely see that the closed app store model is not good for them and other third-parties that are in competition with app store owners. Given that apple is currently the biggest and best app store if you make a point with them and set a legal/regulatory precedent with them they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open which is better for Google. My guess is that they believe this long-term advantage far outweighs the value of simply getting their app on the iPhone.

      Or they could just be sticking it to Apple ;)

      • by arminw (717974) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @12:49PM (#29483439)

        ....they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open....

        Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.

        • To play devil's advocate here:

          Because Apple locked down the iPhone so that you have to apply mods that break one of the many terms of service to access any store other than Apple's.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by poopdeville (841677)

            Or... you could just buy an Android phone.

            If you want to play in somebody else's playground/shopping mall, Apple isn't going to stop you.

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Toonol (1057698)
              And maybe that's exactly the point that Google is trying to get across, here. From Google's perspective, even if Apple has the right to restrict their apps, the more everybody realizes how restrictive it is, the better for Google.
        • ....they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open....

          Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.

          So first of all my post wasn't to say that it should be legislated that Apple open their app store. Please reread my post. My point was to answer the question why Google was going after them. From Google's standpoint it makes perfect sense to try and force open app stores.

          Second to respond to your post...

          Actually, your analogy is flawed. Not all merchants are equal. Private companies that do not rely on regulated equity markets for capital and companies that don't rely on regulated product marke

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by fooslacker (961470)
            Oh and by the way we do regulate brick and mortar stores to keep them from colluding to box out third parties from a market through anti-competative deals and price fixing. It's pretty much what anti-trust is all about. It's not quite the same here but there are overlaps.
        • by kimvette (919543) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @09:30PM (#29486525) Homepage Journal

          Why?

          Because the iPhone has a closed marketplace. You can't buy the commodity good known as the iPhone and then go to say, Walmart or Newegg or Micro Center or Amazon to buy software for it. You can't even program your own software for it without buying signing rights from Apple. They have leveraged the product to TIE the store to the popularity of that market, and they are deciding what you and I can or cannot buy.

          In addition, if you look back a few days, they took tethering away; one of the most heavily touted features on their web site, and in the last few days added fine print to the web site. Now, it's fine that they no longer wish to order it, but at the time of the 3.1 release they did not have that fine print. Even unlocked phones are having tethering removed for folks who are downloading the 3.1 update, all while Apple is touting the tethering feature. On top of that, they have been pretty heavily censoring a thread about that on their messageboard (I've had a post deleted twice now, and I've seen other messages from other posters disappear - the last time I reposted I promised to find other Apple-related sites to make more people aware of the issue).

          In other words, Apple have been becoming increasingly abusive toward iPhone customers and developers alike since the iPhone gained critical mass. Blocking Google Voice isn't the only thing they're doing.

          On the other hand, it's like they are saying "we've made enough money, let's give other, more open smartphone makers opportunity for huge profits." It's as if they want to give Android-based phones and the Palm Pre huge advantages in the market now. It's pretty darn nice of them, actually! ;)

      • While I'm no Randian market absolutist, this is one place where there is a healthy market right now. While I think you're right that Google is trying to get Apple to open the iPhone a little more, I think their strategy extends beyond trying to get the FCC to look sternly at Apple: As the iPhone represents an important market for their product, extending Google Voice it to Android [google.com] and Blackberry [google.com] first is part of their strategy to pressure Apple to ease up.

        Google needs Apple to increase their mobile app inst

        • At heart, I'm actually probably much closer to a Randian absolutist than you or my post makes me sound. That said the telecom and stock markets in which the companies participate are highly regulated (not necessarily effectively regulated) and any concept of an absolutist free market is only a dream. While, I might (and do) prefer a system that was much less regulated and self-corrected and punished impropriety through bankruptcy and risk of ruin that's not the world we live in and if we're going to regul
    • by mgblst (80109)

      Google already supports Mobile Terminal Google code project for jail broken iPhones/iTouches, so the precedent is there.

      The Road Transport Authority already supports speeding, so why don't they open a racetrack?? You are so fucking ignorant it hurts.

  • Easy fix (Score:5, Funny)

    by supernes (1560323) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @08:10AM (#29482291)
    Just remove the dialer and you're set, Google! You're the paragon of innovation, you'll find a way to, you know, call people without actually dialling them!
    • by Plunky (929104)

      Just remove the dialer and you're set, Google! You're the paragon of innovation, you'll find a way to, you know, call people without actually dialling them!

      Of course, I haven't read TFA, but is that possible? I mean, have Google not integrated the app into the normal contacts list in any way? That would seem to be the best thing, if you could add a 'Google Voice' field to the contact database with the calling details, then just select that 'address' from the list when you want to call somebody via GV and

      • by Shikaku (1129753)

        Yes. Cell phones already have that functionality, whereby the initiating talks to the other expecting the other line to listen. You can easily skip the making the call part by leaving only voice messages.

        I call it Instant Voice Messaging or IVM*.

        *Patent Pending, ©Shikaku

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Plunky (929104)

          No I think you mistunderstand. Apple are saying that the Google Voice application is not satisfactory because it duplicates the dialer. I'm taking that as meaning that the application has its own method for initiating calls but Apple would prefer that the application was more integrated with the usual iPhone method for initiating a call. I don't have an iPhone but I imagine there is a special swipe where it calls your mom. Well, if you add your moms 'Google Voice' calling details to her database entry rathe

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Yah - and the plethora of time-telling apps should all remove their clocks because that's redundant functionality too. Strongly encourage folks to ring Apple and demand release of the google version of voice. The web ui set as an app shortcut is at least a workable replacement, it doesn't come close to the functionality on display in the android version of the voice app.
  • Skype did this 1st, but thats eBay.

    So apple wants control over their voice input output devices in prospective to 3/4G. Who owns the proxy to WiFI/Max?

  • Easy (Score:5, Funny)

    by XPeter (1429763) * on Sunday September 20, 2009 @08:12AM (#29482303) Homepage

    Apple: I'm sorry, but we don't want your voice app in our store, it threatens business.
    Google: Oh yeah? We'll see how well you do without our maps.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by arminw (717974)

      ....I'm sorry, but we don't want your voice app in our store,...

      How is this different from Wal-Mart saying: "we don't want to carry your (you name it) in our store and we don't have to give you reason why." The App store is Apple's, and they shouldn't have to give a reason as to why they accept or reject a particular item any more than we would tell Wal-Mart they must do so, or any other store.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Bagels (676159)
        Fairly simple - in the real world you can go to another store and buy the "you name it" that Wal-Mart refuses to sell. There are no other (definitely legal) app stores you can turn to on the iPhone. There are of course alternative phones, but it's typically neither simple nor inexpensive to make such a switch - and if one does switch, there's usually no guarantee that the next carrier/OS creator won't limit you in similar ways.
      • Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anpheus (908711) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @04:19PM (#29484701)

        The reason it's being investigating is because Apple's iPhone is exclusive to AT&T, and they're investigating the matters of handset exclusivity and long contracts and a number of other industry practices that may not be in the best interest of the consumer, and can prevent competition.

        Now normally that would be OK. We're not talking about monopolies, but the reason it's not here is because AT&T and all the other mobile vendors are using our spectrum. The Federal government has licensed the spectrum to them to benefit us, and when they are doing things with their business to prevent us from using that spectrum in the way, or with the device we want on the network we want, then it is a problem.

        When it is demonstrably easy to switch a jailbroken iPhone from AT&T to T-Mobile, then the FCC has proof that the exclusivity is solely about maintaining market dominance. When the handset manufacturer, now tied to the dominant market player, is arbitrarily rejecting apps, particularly apps from companies that they are in some form of competition with, then the FCC has connected all the dots from Google, to Apple, to AT&T, and is wondering wtf is going on with the spectrum they licensed for the good of the people.

      • by jwiegley (520444)

        Because there is no other store to sell your product in.

        Wal-mart is not analogous to the Apple app store. (and thus your argument fails). Wal-mart has Target, Amazon, Costco, K-Mart, Bed Bath and Beyond and a host of other competitors that a product company could contract with to sell its products and a consumer could choose to purchase products for their household from.

        There is no other app-store that an iPhone user can select to purchase their apps from. There is no competition that product companys can c

  • by syousef (465911) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @08:37AM (#29482365) Journal

    Really simple. No matter how "cool" (read how well marketed as cool) a device that won't run whatever software YOU choose for such artificial reasons as the manufacturer choosing to retain control isn't yours at all. Stop believing the marketing hype. Stop buying into this in droves or the future is nothing but a string of crippled devices. Mark my words. Next step will be devices that expire and refuse to work after a given date.

    It's not cool just because it CAN run something if it WON'T run it no matter what some fuckwit in a turtle neck tells you. Think different means think like a fucking gullible sheep.

    And this is coming from someone who loathes Google just as much as Apple. The Internet web 2 cloud computing buzzword age is ridden with little substance and lots of marketing doublespeak and the sickening thing is people are buying into it. Our world COULD be amazing in 20 years but I bet it's more restricted and more frustrating than ever.

    • by mlscdi (1046868) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @09:31AM (#29482475)

      Next step will be devices that expire and refuse to work after a given date

      That already exists. Ever tried to replace an iPod/iPhone battery? Sure, it's possible, but Apple make this as difficult as they can for you. I always have held the belief that iPods/iPhones are defective by design.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Pieroxy (222434)

        You know, iPhones are known for exploding, flying away and stuff [blogspot.com], so a mere battery dying out is nothing!

      • by bvankuik (203077)

        >replace an iPod/iPhone battery? Sure, it's possible, but Apple make this as difficult as they can for you

        Actually since the third generation of iPhones, replacing the battery has gotten somewhat easier. At first the battery had a little tab that had to be desoldered before soldering the new battery in place. Nowadays that tab can be replaced and comes with the standard 3gen replacement battery.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Karganeth (1017580)
      The majority of people don't give a damn about being able to reprogram a device. People want things to be simple. Sure, you are an expert with computers and want to configure everything. It's just like how an engineer doesn't like to buy a whole car but instead buys the engine and the brakes and puts it all together (ok that was a terrible example). You wouldn't be able to put a car together - it would be of no use to you. A lack of choice in certain areas (eg in the app store) is often good - choice ca
      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @10:00AM (#29482585) Journal
        People don't want to be able to program a device, but that doesn't mean that they don't want their device to be programmable. To follow your car analogy, most people don't care if they can't fix their car, but they do care if their favourite mechanic can't. They do care if they have to go through the authorised dealer for servicing and parts, who charges 50% more than their competitors.
    • by Val314 (219766)

      I get you point, but what if the device just does the things that i want it to do?
      My TV has (at least I've read it in a forum) a Linux-based OS in there to do the menus.

      But i can't install any arbitrary app that I want.

      Is it crippled? maybe. But it does the thing that i want from it (watching TV) so its ok for me.

      Same with my iPhone/Xbox/PS/... They do the things that i want them to do.

      Would they be able to do even more? Yes! They could run any arbitrary application.
      Do I need them to to so? No, they do the

      • He probably thinks you're a dumb consumerist sheep as well (whereas he's a genius and paragon of virtue). That's why nobody takes these kinds of rants seriously. The original message of promoting openness and freedom is lost amidst the immature insults to anyone who doesn't share their extreme beliefs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Starayo (989319)
      Show me a more open touchscreen device with as much ease of use that I can get for a price anywhere near comparable to this one (I pay AUD$49 a month inc handset payments) and I'll consider switching. People buy them for reasons other than "I'm a consumer whore".
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Ash-Fox (726320)

        Show me a more open touchscreen device with as much ease of use that I can get for a price anywhere near comparable to this one (I pay AUD$49 a month inc handset payments) and I'll consider switching.

        Sure, no problem.

        The Nokia N900 is going to be about the same price as an iPhone where I live. I have no idea about what it's going to be like locally to you, you know more about your local providers than I do (I only know of the phone company Telstra in Australia) so I'll leave that to you to find out.

        It is a

        • by Starayo (989319)
          Not currently available here with no ETA, and even if it had one whatever plans available for it would be way too expensive. When the iPhone launched, there were special iPhone plans available - I'm paying about half what most people do for more value. Looks like it'll be targeted at business users, which means way more than what I'm willing to pay. Might be worth looking at if it's not too expensive, though.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by mgblst (80109)

          Well, it is on Telstra, so no way I am going near that beast. Sure, it might be the same price upfront, but the extra charges you pay on Telstra compares to the other Australia carriers, Optus, Vodafone, 3 are a joke, and push it over the edge.

      • by quadrox (1174915)
        You may want to considder the HTC Hero. watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5F0Ruzwos8 [youtube.com] For a comparison between Iphone 3GS and the hero. The recently released update fixes any performance issues the hero has had, now it is superior to the iphone, at least in what matters to me. The 3GS still has slightly smoother performance, but the Hero certainly is performing very well (and not laggy at all anymore) as well and is a lot more open.
        • by Starayo (989319)
          Doesn't seem to be available here, and if the plans it would be offered on are comparable to the HTC dream's, much more expensive than my current iPhone.
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Soon, the Nokia N900 will be available under similar terms. It runs Maemo Linux, which is "more open" :) (It is also more mature than Android)

    • Yeah, I bet you still use Google or Bing though. Admit it :p

    • I was with you up to this point:

      The Internet web 2 cloud computing buzzword age is ridden with little substance and lots of marketing doublespeak

      I'll grant that this happens, a lot.

      However, web apps and utility computing (two possible things "cloud computing" could mean) are a Good Thing, and they are here to stay. Indeed, like it or not, that's exactly what you used to post this comment, and it's exactly what you're using to read my reply -- if you really and truly don't want to buy into it, go back to newsgroups.

      Where I have a problem is where people build yet another walled garden this way. I have no problem with G

    • Wrong. The utility of any tool is judged by what it can do, not by what it can't.

      The Economist COULD print hot nude photos. It won't. Club COULD print incisive articles on Pakistan's diplomacy with China and India. It won't.

      As for the iPhone, most people I know wouldn't recognize Steve Jobs if he knocked on their door. They buy it because of what it CAN do; which it does better than most phones.

      I'm happy to brick my iPhone when Android and the Palm Pre show their everyday superiority. But I'm not g
  • This is a real case of "he says she says...". We need more clear-cut evidence. Who is telling the truth?

    • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @09:05AM (#29482421) Homepage Journal

      This is a real case of "he says she says...". We need more clear-cut evidence. Who is telling the truth?

      True. All we have are Google's and Apple's statements to the FCC. However, when Apple says they are "investigating an app" in the App Store, we have all seen that this effectively means that they have rejected it, but due to popularity, notoriety, or for various other reasons, they are not willing to come out and say "The app is rejected." The app will sit "in investigation" forever, effectively rejected without getting Apple's hands dirty.

      OTOH, I suspect that Google may have an actual rejection letter. If they do, they should just post it as the egg on Apple's face would be priceless. :)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by erroneus (253617)

        Google has not likely received any letter. The reason? Likely to maintain Apple's wriggle room in this situation. But according to Google's statements to the FCC, they were told explicitly and directly that their apps were rejected. It is therefore Google's official testimony from top executives that Apple has rejected the Google apps, not merely pulled them pending investigation.

  • Meanwhile, the Palm Pre has had Google Voice, first unofficially (as homebrew) and now as official (through the app catalog); and both free:

    http://www.precentral.net/app-catalog-gets-google-voice-app-and-much-more [precentral.net]
    http://www.precentral.net/homebrew-apps/gdial-pro-google-voice-app [precentral.net]

    So... why is Sprint OK with Google Voice when AT&T is not?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AvitarX (172628)

      This looks closer to GV than google voice. Apple rejected GV also (after accepting it), but this is about a dispute between Google and Apple, and GV is a third party app.

      The G1 also has both an un-official (in the app store, but non-google) and an official (by google) voice app. Both have annoyances and plusses, so I use them both (GV for SMS, and Google Voice for dialing and message checking).

      • And this is due to the fact that Google's appstore allows for any number of applications that duplicate a certain functionality, without being anal-retentive about it in the least - unlike Apple.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by swb (14022)

      Because Sprint is a lame third place among cell carriers and they desperately need a "cool" phone that does something the iPhone doesn't?

      • by markdavis (642305)

        Lame?? Please define.

        For the very longest time Sprint has had the fastest data network of all the carriers in the USA. They have very good coverage and the lowest prices per speed you can get. The biggest "problem" with Sprint has been CDMA.... but that didn't stop Verizon from becoming the largest customer base using CMDA, did it?

        In the US, it is T-Mobile that has been most "lame"- worst coverage and slowest data. They are the ones that wanted to be "cool", and did so by offering the first Android phon

    • Re:Pre has it (Score:4, Interesting)

      by RedK (112790) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @11:31AM (#29483001)
      AT&T is fine with it. All of AT&T's blackberry customers get to use the Google Voice app on their phone without a problem.
  • Corporate Culture (Score:4, Interesting)

    by billy8988 (1049032) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @09:33AM (#29482483)

    According to this link,
    http://www.businessinsider.com/did-apple-lie-about-rejecting-google-voice-iphone-app-2009-9 [businessinsider.com]

    "In a series of in-person meetings, phone calls and emails between July 5 and July 28, 2009, Apple and Google representative discussed the approval status of the Google Voice application that was submitted on June 2, 2009. The primary points of contact between the two companies were Alan Eustace, Google Senior Vice President of Engineering and Research and Phil Schiller, Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing. On July 7, Mr. Eustace and Mr. Schiller spoke over the phone. It was during this call that Mr. Schiller informed Mr. Eustace that Apple was rejecting the Google Voice application for the reasons described above."

    It is interesting that a VP of R&D is talking to a VP of Mumbo Jumbo. Does it tell their respective corporate culture?

     

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      It is interesting that a VP of R&D is talking to a VP of Mumbo Jumbo. Does it tell their respective corporate culture?

      Apple sells a fucked-over, incredibly latency-enhanced version of an operating system first sold on 68k machines more than superficially similar to macintoshes (even used ADB) on which it was fairly responsive. They sell it to you on PC clones whose claims to fame are a pretty case, and the ability to mostly correctly run Apple's antique-but-revised operating system. Apple is marketing. You never hear about who designed an Apple motherboard, and you never will, but you often hear about who they've hired to

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by RedK (112790)
        MacOS (the thing that used to be called System # and run on 68k machines) and Mac OS X aren't the same thing at all. Mac OS X is actually NeXTSTEP with a new display engine. It has nothing that was in the original and for a time, you had to run Mac OS 9 to get app compatibility. So while I see the point you're trying to make, you're mostly just trolling.
      • by Ash-Fox (726320)

        Apple sells a fucked-over, incredibly latency-enhanced version of an operating system first sold on 68k machines more than superficially similar to macintoshes (even used ADB) on which it was fairly responsive. They sell it to you on PC clones whose claims to fame are a pretty case, and the ability to mostly correctly run Apple's antique-but-revised operating system.

        If you want to bash Apple, do it right. OS X is not based on any m68k code. You could discuss about how OS X has poor POSIX compatibility (even

    • Calling Schiller 'VP of Mumbo Jumbo' is disingenuous at best. He is basically the second in command at Apple; he's the one who takes over when Steve Jobs is on medical leave and is the one who is expected to be the new CEO when Jobs retires (or dies).
  • I really don't care how Apple shoots itself in the foot regarding their AppStore. The way I see it, they pioneered the market but someone else (maybe Microsoft or Google) will rule the smartphone/PMP and downloadable application market soon enough. I give Apple a lot of credit for their vision and creativeness but they must think people are really stupid if they think anyone will believe that they _didn't_ reject the app. I applaud Apple's misguided efforts for quality control and attempt to maintain th
    • What market? There were mobile application stores since 2000, at least. Handmark [handmark.com] is one of them.

      The only "market" Apple has pioneered with the iPhone is the multi-touch enabled smart-phone.

    • Apple's genius is the 100% consumer glitter. but they have not invented even one new technology.

      It took a stack of window over a starry sky before Mac users started using incremental back ups. But, by god, Apple's glitter effects have average computer users benefiting from this ancient technology.

      By & large, consumer computer features follow the course : various developer's invent, Apple make it pretty & understandable, and Microsoft deploys it to the world.

      By comparison, business features general

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Disable Google Map from the iPhone and see what happens...

    • by schon (31600)

      Maybe because Google's motto of "do no evil"?

      Or maybe because Google cares about the end-user's happiness with their product?

      But then.. a big corporation caring about the people who use their stuff.. doesn't seem very likely does it? :)

  • by brownsteve (673529) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @10:02AM (#29482599) Homepage
    *sniff*
    Oh, it's so cute. First they were just Baby Apple, playing nice with the other kiddies and corporations. Then they took their first steps - their first lock-in schemes, their first anticompetitive business practices. It was sooo adorable!

    Now they just did the darndest thing - they're finally lying to government investigators. Awww. They're growing up to be just like their big brother Microsoft!
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Wag the dog. Apple lock in precedes Microsoft by a long shot. It was born that way. It's precisely why Microsoft enjoys its 95% market share. It's Microsoft that's playing catch up.

  • What is the difference between studying an application for several years and rejecting it outright? Years can be a lifetime for a software product. At what point does continually studying cross over into outright rejection? I'm sure Google's lawyers will be asking that same question.

  • by adenied (120700) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @10:26AM (#29482705)

    Instead of sitting around on Slashdot crying like a bunch of babies who can't open a bottle of milk, put your comments in the official record. Tell the FCC what you think. Maybe it won't have any impact, but at least your message will be out there for someone to potentially see. And who knows, if the public actually cares about this maybe the FCC will actually listen.

    There isn't an official docket for this at the FCC yet. It's contained in a rule making proceeding, RM-11361. You can file comments into the official record here:

    http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi [fcc.gov]

    As usual, try to be civil. But let the FCC know what you think. Complaining on Slashdot won't do you any good.

    • by MtViewGuy (197597)

      I think Apple and AT&T will change their stance really fast when the FTC and/or Justice Department hits them with an antitrust lawsuit in violation of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act.

      It appears from "reading between the lines" that Apple and AT&T conspired to deliberately reject the Google Voice application for the iPhone, which is a major no-no under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

    • by Ash-Fox (726320)

      Instead of sitting around on Slashdot crying like a bunch of babies who can't open a bottle of milk, put your comments in the official record. Tell the FCC what you think.

      I've let them know that I think Apple should be able to do what they want with their platform.

    • by fermion (181285)
      Tell the FCC what. That I want uniform products with no product differentiation, no innovation, no new methods.

      Google is talking the old idea of the telephone and using it to turn this iPhone into a boring telephone, just like so many others do. Look at the iphone, and the main complaint. That is takes several keystrokes to make a call. Texting is easier than calling. Sending an email is almost easier. Well, duh,the phone is just one app, and it is ATT, at least in the US. Google needs to be innovativ

  • Seriously, one of the most appreciable applications (I don't even check my voicemail on my Cure 8900) is already a duplicated functionality on Google voice (Visual Voicemail, although I understand there's much more..) . Target the Blackberry business crowd. I've been patiently for my invite to try it, and I hear the new BB 3G gets visual voicemail anyway, the rest of the late adopters will have it.

    Not to mention the awesome features which Apple/Rip/Nokia have yet to attempt yet.
  • by Coolhand2120 (1001761) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @12:13PM (#29483263)
    These guys have some nerve, they have "borrowed" more hardware and software from other people than any other major computer manufacture, and all done with a wink and a nod to their fans (oh ya Intel sucks, huh Apple).

    Would it not follow that FreeBSD should tell Apple that their OSx has "duplicated functionality" to gnome/KDE and ask them to remove it from the BSD OS they so graciously borrowed? Or perhaps the PC industry can politely ask Apple to quit putting their off white boxes around their damn hardware and slapping Apple stickers on them, because they are just "duplicated functionality" of a PC.

    The argument: "because there are other applications that compete with our application you can't install them" is preposterous. Can you imagine if MS said you can only install IE now? Only Apple can get away with this because they have droves of lunatic fanatics (in the media and elsewhere) that would gladly throw their bodies on top of any critical message of Apple to try and drown out the sound of the growing number of critics of the absurd policies that Apple makes. What happened to equal protection under the law in this country? If MS did anything near this they would already be coughing up blood from the PR beating they would take, Apple doesn't even have a scratch. They contradict publicly filed FCC documents, and expect everyone to believe their insane argument of "duplicated functionality". Well guess what Apple, you have duplicated the functionality of a jackass and the jackass asks that you cease and desist immediately.
  • When an app offers free voice phone calling over a network infrastructure that makes its money by charging for the same thing, it's pretty clear to me who killed it. Apple only cares about killing something when it directly competes with its own product e.g. Mac clones.

  • by King_TJ (85913) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @01:22PM (#29483617) Journal

    For just one example of what they're been putting developers through, see this guy's blog/diary: http://www.roomsapp.mobi/Rooms/Blog/Eintrage/2009/9/14_Crazy_App_Update_Diary.html [roomsapp.mobi]

    The fact is, I really like most things Apple builds, but it's never exactly been a secret that they're on the slow side executing a new idea or design.... Long-time Mac users practically all know about the advice to "avoid revision A products". If they promise a release date, chances are, they'll miss it. And look at the mess they made with MobileME at launch. Even iTunes needed a long time to evolve before they could offer their material for sale in many other countries.

    The app store is going through similar "growing pains". Apple really underestimated the amount of work they created for themselves, trying to personally review each and every app submission to ensure it met their "standards" (despite not even having THOSE really set in stone). It's, by nature, a very subjective process - and one employee having a bad day could easily cause a rejection or long delay in a program's approval, over essentially nothing. Other times, someone could just make a simple mistake and ALLOW something really questionable, irritating everyone else who ever tried something similar and got rejected.... I think at some point, Apple is going to have to just start allowing EVERYTHING that meets certain automated code review standards, and deal with complaints AFTER the fact.

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Working...