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.
Re:The accepted and rejected it (Score:4, Interesting)
Corporate Culture (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Corporate Culture (Score:2, Interesting)
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 produce a case. Google, on the other hand, is about software. They're going to make sure that the technical people are involved, because they want to get things done.
Re:Easy fix (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stop buying crippled devices (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Easy fix (Score:3, Interesting)
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 rather than her 'PSTN' calling details and perform the special swipe, it should start the Google Voice application and call her using that. Making the user open a 'Google Voice' application before initiating a call is not the iPhone UI way.
(bear in mind that I've never even touched an iPhone :)
Reading the links above, it seems that Apple have passed the buck back with improvements requested and it is Google that decided to cease development and call it a rejection. Don't forget that this is not the Microsoft universe where any piece of shit is good enough, Apple are well used to rejecting software because the UI can be improved and its why the user experience is better with Apple.
Re:Pre has it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (Score:4, Interesting)
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! ;)
Re:More clarity required (Score:1, Interesting)
HyperCard is back as Runtime Revolution, and it kicks ass. My dad was able to get a stack he wrote over 15 years ago to run as a web app with about 5 minutes of porting. It is utterly spanking all comers for a language approaching natural language programming, without that blasted dot syntax. It's human readable code for ordinary people. Windows, Mac, and Linux folks, plus the company backing it is offering an integrated web hosting setup for peanuts if you don't want to set up a server yourself.