Google, Apple Joust Over Rejected Voice App 228
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.
The accepted and rejected it (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple accepted the app, and then rejected it later, and asked that Google reimburse everyone who bought the app before that. I don't see how Apple could think that anyone would believe they accepted it, and then "studied" it, and refused any further purchases or updates, but didn't reject it.
Stop buying crippled devices (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:More clarity required (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Stop buying crippled devices (Score:0, Insightful)
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.
Ever stopped and thought "if I have to explain to them why it isn't theirs, maybe something's wrong in my thesis". Look around you and think what of the infrastructure and ecosystem that enables you to do mundane things such as post on Slashdot are truly "yours". Still you use them as they provide utility for you. In some cases, part of the utility is that you don't have full control, so you can ruin it for everyone else.
Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Pre has it (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:Stop buying crippled devices (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Stop buying crippled devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but that is where standards come in to play.
Utilities are essential, but it is just as important that utilities are limited to providing the sorts of things that are natural monopolies - such as providing bandwidth. Vertical integration causes all kinds of competition problems.
If your DNS provider makes money off of registrations and isn't allowed to make it off of selling ads, then they have no incentive to redirect NXDOMAINs. If your bandwidth provider doesn't also sell VOIP or on-demand video, then they have no incentive to filter/deprioritize competitor's traffic.
It isn't just technology - look at the mess with dealer-servicing of cars. OEMs withold specifications (particularly around on-board diagnostics) to make life more difficult on competing repair shops.
Re:More clarity required (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stop buying crippled devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More clarity required (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember HyperCard? Steve Jobs said regarding rumors that HyperCard was being cancelled were "bulls--t". However, how many updates to HyperCard have come out of Apple? Honesty is not Apple's policy.
Re:Pre has it (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Sprint is a lame third place among cell carriers and they desperately need a "cool" phone that does something the iPhone doesn't?
Re:Stop buying crippled devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a sort of quality control, protecting the user from possible bad experiences so that the company's name doesn't get tarnished.
Let's hope the company's name gets tarnished enough by the numerous apps that consumers actually want, and developers want to write, but Apple won't approve.
The majority like that the company is protecting them.
Then let them have their app store, and throw up a little warning if I try to install apps through other channels -- downloading from a website, say. Users who really trust Apple to protect them can stick to the officially approved apps, and users who want to be more adventurous shouldn't have to jailbreak their phone.
Yes, we could buy other phones, and I intend to. But isn't it a bit insulting to realize you're essentially letting Apple protect you from yourself?
Everyone else doesn't get it, they think that just because we have a free market that means that a company has to make their products open to tinker with and if they don't it's some crime.
A lot of people seem to have this assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid ("doesn't get it") or evil.
No, I accept that the free market means that as long as the iPhone doesn't become a monopoly, they can pretty much do what they want. I'm a bit appalled that the free market is failing to correct such an obvious inefficiency, though.
But the fact that something is legal doesn't make it ok. It's entirely legal for me to link to goatse right here, but it would make me an ass, so I don't do it.
Why isn't anyone bitching at Microsoft for not letting any 3rd party apps on the Zune HD? Because no one even wants the device?
Most likely. But also because the iPhone has been available, and high profile, for awhile now. Zune HD apps of any kind weren't available till this point.
I don't really mind a device that's "crippled", but designed for a specific purpose, to be an appliance -- as others point out, if there's a Linux inside my TV to draw the menus, as much as it might be cool to hack it, I really don't care. My current cell phone is some cheap Motorola crap that can run Verizon-approved apps, and nothing else -- and I don't care, because I didn't buy it for the ability to run apps, I bought it for the ability to make phone calls -- and later discovered that it could take decent pictures, and play music, which is kind of a nice bonus.
I don't even have too much of a problem with game consoles, although I'd much prefer an open device, where homebrew games can be sold without going through a third party.
Where I have a problem is when something is sold as a general-purpose computing device -- and don't kid yourself, the iPhone is not sold as "just a phone", it's sold as "there's an app for that" -- and is then crippled. On top of that, you have Apple's seemingly random approval process...
I mean, take this:
Apple is open about rejecting apps, they aren't trying to trick devs/customers into thinking they can get any app accepted.
Developers, no. But customers aren't going to be much aware of this until it starts to bite them -- until there's an app they want, but can't have, because Apple has rejected it.
Again: It's sold as "There's an app for that." Not as "There might be an app for that, if we allow it."
Re:The accepted and rejected it (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong on both points. First of all, it was intended to be a free download. Secondly, it was never available in the App Store anyway so there was nothing to be reimbursed.
I'm not defending Apple on this--I think they're wrong as can be--but you need to get your facts straight before you make an inflammatory post.
From the Kings of Duplicated functionality! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (Score:5, Insightful)
....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.
Re:Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
....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:Stop buying crippled devices (Score:4, Insightful)
The Magusson-Moss warranty act states otherwise. And the auto aftermarket was one of the reasons for the anti-tying provision.
That, and it's Microsoft. Everyone expects Microsoft to do the wrong thing.
Apple's approval process is broken, period .... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Corporate Culture (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Follow the leader (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.
Re:Easy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (Score:3, Insightful)
It is no the same thing, not even in the same ballpark, not even the same game. You are bringing a cricket bat to a boxing match.
There is nothing to stop Walmart from not selling A the Sony Vaio WGA3. There is no laws to stop Walmart from not selling any Sony product at all. Are you demented?
It's almost like you guys can't read or don't bother to. I actually said it's not the same thing. The parent post was about regulated markets versus unregulated markets. I was pointing out that we regulate brick and mortar stores too, nothing more. Rather than trying to be clever with your ranting analogy of an analogy try to understand the main points of the conversation and contribute next time.
As for what I was talking about, we do however stop Sony from selling TVs to Wal-mart at 10% of cost so they drive all other TV sellers out of business with an agreement to then raise the price to 10x the previous market value so that both benefit from a marketplace without competition.
We also keep competing stores from getting together and fixing prices arbitrarily high for TVs or splitting up the city into protected sales zones where one store sells in District A and one in District B. Again the point was about regulation not about forcing someone to sell something.
Re:Easy (Score:2, Insightful)
...the exclusivity is solely about maintaining market dominance....
When Apple first went to the major phone providers, they all turned up their noses and wanted all sorts of restrictions, except for a relatively small provider whose name I forget at the moment. That provider was, while they were still in negotiation with Apple, bought up by AT&T which then continued with a successful exclusive contract with Apple for two years. Verizon especially, rejected Apple's idea because traditionally they and other cell phone providers had ironclad control over what went on to their phones and what phones they would accept. With the Apple and their iPhone, it was the first time that a cell phone manufacturer had to say so in the marketing of their device. We can all thank Apple that they single-handedly busted ironclad control away from the network providers, when they took over marketing and design of their own product. The other cell phone manufacturers have been and still largely are not involved in the marketing of their own products. Before Apple came along with the iPhone, cell phones were closely tied and sold by the network providers. Why is it not that then already the FCC got involved? I think this whole thing is a case of sour grapes of Apple's competitors who want to throw a monkey wrench into Apple's business practices.
Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (Score:2, Insightful)
...the more everybody realizes how restrictive it is...
I think it is only here on /., where people are concerned with the restrictions on the on the iPhone. The ordinary John or Jane user just want an easy to use phone that has other neat capabilities. They read Apple's advertising about the fact that they have 60,000+ programs available for the iPhone, which the others can't boast about. The iPhone is not only a good phone, although its network at present has some people complaining, but a good gaming, Internet and e-mail platform as well. Oh yes, it also is an iPod and plays music well.
Most of the users of the iPhone don't have the mindset of those who post on this forum. Only a very small, in fact extremely tiny minority of all the millions of iPhone users, are bothered by the fact that certain programs are not available on the app store, because Apple won't let them in their walled garden.
Re:Stop buying crippled devices (Score:5, Insightful)
That's subjective. In my experience Apple laptop failures are on par with Dell laptop failure (unsuprising given the fact that they use the same internal components and similar manufacturing techniques/conditions). Apple laptops failures are actually more common then Dell laptop failures but I'll happily put to the small sample size (4 Mac's compared to 50 Dell's).
But as you said, getting a Dell or Lenovo fixed under warranty is a lot easier then getting a Mac fixed under warranty (Dear Apple, please learn the meaning of the term Next Business Day).
Re:More clarity required (Score:1, Insightful)
Steve Jobs is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever seen. How often has he said, "People don't want a device like that. We'll never make a device like that." Whenever Jobs says that you can be sure that Apple has a prototype, and there's a 50/50 chance Apple will release it within the next five years.