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.
Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Icy (Score:2)
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
Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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: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: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
....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)
Re: (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 t
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Voice Apps (Score:2)
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)
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)
....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)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:Easy (Score:4, Funny)
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: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: (Score:2, Troll)
You know, iPhones are known for exploding, flying away and stuff [blogspot.com], so a mere battery dying out is nothing!
Re: (Score:2)
>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, Informative)
Cars today (including the US marques) are so much superior that it is not uncommon to go 30K miles before anything "tune-up" like is done to them, apart from periodic lubrication changes and air filter changes. Hell, the new Cadil
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No.
It doesn't last longer. On average, Apple products probably do takes longer to develop a fault than competing devices, but once a fault has developed, I would say it's less likely that you can get it fixed, and almost impossible that you'll be able to fix it yourself or get it fixed cheaply.
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: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Stop buying crippled devices (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
You know, people have made Millions, millions from one app. You are so ignorant if you think that a few rejections, and there have not been that many, are going to change anything..
Rank Title Units Sold Current Price
1 Tap Tap Revenge Classic 4,036,348 $0.99
2 Fieldrunners 1,638,916 2.99
3 Flight Control 1,381,320 0.9
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you be insulted by a company offering its market space only to products it finds worth selling?
Way to not read my comment.
Here, let me quote myself:
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.
So, to answer your question:
Do you get insulted when you go to a mall and don't see the stores you like?
No, but I would be insulted if my car would only go to that one mall -- if I couldn't go to the stores I like.
Do you get insulted when gun manufacturers put safeties on their guns? They are literally protecting you from yourself.
Pathetic. Safeties don't actually prevent me from doing anything I want with a gun. They just make it harder for me to do something by accident.
The App Store does try to prevent me from doing dangerous things, on purpose -- that would be like selling a gun with the safety welded in the "on" position. Crippled, much?
Re: (Score:2)
Going from the car analogy.... When it is under warranty have the dealer (apple in this case) do the work. When the warranty is over you still want SOMEONE to be able to work on it that is not going to charge you half the price of the product just to fix something small.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Although you think this is a great example, most aftermarket parts put on a car voids the very important warranty unless it is all authorized dealer parts and service.
The Magusson-Moss warranty act states otherwise. And the auto aftermarket was one of the reasons for the anti-tying provision.
While you are mostly correct, parts which are designed to alter the behavior of the device aren't covered by Magnuson-Moss. You cannot be refused warranty service for using a non-recommended brand of oil so long as it is the proper grade, nor in fact for using a non-original crankshaft (for example) so long as it meets factory specifications. However, you can indeed be refused warranty service for lubricating your vehicle with silicone and installing a stroker crank. Or, for that matter, installing a turboc
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an N810 and it used to be the same for me, didn't want no phone without a physical keyboard. But now that I have a htc Hero, I don't miss the keyboard at all.
The touchsreen keyboard is really nice on the Hero, and I actually find it more comfortable to use than the physical one on the N810.
I'm still tempted to get a N900 as well, but the lack of capacitive touchscreen kills it for me. Once you have gotten used to a capacitative touchscreen, you'll never want anything else again :D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I bet you still use Google or Bing though. Admit it :p
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well, at the very least articles like this one are a good opportunity for people to burn off mod points, although generally in the form of 'troll' or flamebait.
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: (Score:2)
How can your ruin everyone else's iPhones by installing software you want on your own?
More clarity required (Score:2)
This is a real case of "he says she says...". We need more clear-cut evidence. Who is telling the truth?
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: (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: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.
Pre has it (Score:2)
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)
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: (Score:2)
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)
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: (Score:2)
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)
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: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? Apple? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 never invented anything, not once, never. (Score:2)
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
Why does google even play?? (Score:2, Funny)
Disable Google Map from the iPhone and see what happens...
Re: (Score:2)
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? :)
Follow the leader (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Practically speaking . . . (Score:2)
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.
Tell the FCC what you think (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Forget Apple, here comes RIM (Score:2)
Not to mention the awesome features which Apple/Rip/Nokia have yet to attempt yet.
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.
Seems pretty clear to me who killed it (Score:2)
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.
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:The accepted and rejected it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Pocket veto.
Re:The accepted and rejected it (Score:5, Informative)
That was a third party app that Apple accepted and later rejected, not the official Google Voice one. The official-from-Google Google Voice app was never available on the app store.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple accepted the app, and then rejected it later, and asked that Google reimburse everyone who bought the app before that.
Now why exactly would Google need to do that? Apple fucked up, either by accepting it or by rejecting it later. They should reimburse their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Reimburse them for what?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite of accept is reject.
The opposite of positive is negative.
However, your claim leaves out the zero. So to not accept is not the same as to reject.
As others have pointed out, (if zero is the pending state) it could pend indefinitely - even forever.
While the net result may seem the same to the consumer, I'm pressed to imagine Google wanting to move forward with the legal complaint: "Apple's decision is pending in an unfair fashion."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Until they either explode or the battery fails ...