Apple Kills Google Voice Apps On the iPhone 541
molnarcs writes "Apple pulls Google Voice-enabled applications from its App Store, citing duplication of functionality. The move affects both Google's official Google Voice and third party apps like Voice Central. Sean Kovacs, main developer of GV Mobile, says that he had personal approval for his app from Phil Shiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, last April. TechCrunch's Jason Kincaid suspects AT&T behind the move."
Coming to Cydia (Score:4, Informative)
Don't worry, you can still use it with Cydia!!!
Also on appulo.us
Re:Coming to Cydia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Coming to Cydia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Coming to Cydia (Score:5, Insightful)
I am really sick of them making the most retarded decisions regarding what applications I can install on MY device
It's really easy to ensure Apple doesn't control what software run on YOUR device. Buy your device from a manufacturer who doesn't suck. iPhone users deserve what they get, knowing Apple tightly controls the ecosystem.
Re:Coming to Cydia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Coming to Cydia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Coming to Cydia (Score:4, Insightful)
Your opinion My opinion :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With decent hardware, people always have the option of breaking their software and running whatever they want, which is what a lot of us iPhone users do. With hardware, you're stuck unless there's an upgrade available. It seems like there are fewer and fewer hardware upgrades available for phones these days. They're not as simple to upgrade as PDA's I guess.
Use your words (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, fuck this. Stripping the character. Damn /.
We'll go with "!>" then.
You know, you could avoid the whole problem by expressing your thoughts with actual words instead of misappropriated mathematical symbols which don't really fit the sentence you're trying to form...
"Is greater than", as used in math, does not have the same meaning as "is better than". The fact that the readings can take the same meaning is somewhat irrelevant: it's the same sort of thing as using an image of paw-prints in a GUI to represent "pause" - the conceptual link isn't as direct as it should be.
So, please, leave magnitude comparison to domains where they have some meaning... Elsewhere, use words.
Re:Use your words (Score:4, Funny)
Mod parent "Thank You - Needed Saying".
Re:Coming to Cydia (Score:5, Informative)
Crappy hardware from HTC? What's crappy about it? Crappy software, sure. Windows Mobile really sucks and needs a lot of work but at least it is easily hackable and upgradeable. HTC are assholes about providing drivers for their GPU chips also. Xda-devs help a LOT in making these phones as good as they can be. I can install any damn software I want to using a .cab file that I can download on the internet.
The HTC hardware, on the other hand, kicks total ass IMO. I consider it FAR superior to anything else I have used. Of course I probably have different criteria that I am looking for in a phone.
I want a large, high resolution touchscreen AND a large, comfortable hardware keyboard in a slider or clamshell design. Standard SD card slot for storage and USB port for charging / data transfer are absolute requirements. I also want 3G/HSDPA, Bluetooth, GPS, and perhaps FM radio. 3.5" audio jack is nice to have, too. My HTC Kaiser was near-perfect hardware IMO, and the new Touch Pro 2 is much closer to the mark, since it is higher-res and has 3.5" audio jack in the US versions. Wish it had physical d-pad keys on the face, but oh well, thats the trade-off for a bigger screen. Right now I'm 90% sure my next phone will be the Touch Pro 2 from Sprint.
Re:Coming to Cydia (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Coming to Cydia (Score:5, Informative)
Crappy hardware coming from HTC? Are you nuts?
Let's compare my HTC Touch HD (which is an older device) to the newest iPhone 3GS:
Size: 115 x 62.8 x 12 mm vs 115.5 x 62.1 x 12.3 mm - no real difference
Weight: 133 grams vs 146 grams - iPhone wins
Display size: 3.8" vs 3.5" - Touch HD wins
Display resolution: 480x800 vs 480x320 - Touch HD wins big time
RAM: 288 MB vs 256 MB - Touch HD wins
Internal memory: 512 MB vs 8GB or 16GB: iPhone wins
Memory card: microSDHC up to 32GB vs none at all - Touch HD wins big time again (and you get a 8GB or 16GB card with every new Touch HD)
Camera: 5 MP with video and 1.5 MP forward camera vs 3 MP with video - Touch HD wins
Battery: 1350 mAh removable battary vs 1219 mAh non-removable battery - Touch HD wins big time
HTC has managed to put a bigger, higher resolution screen, microSDHC drive, a bigger, removable battery, a 3.5mm headphone jack and a higher resolution camera into a package of same size and nearly same weight as iPhone 3GS (thus negating the arguments that a removable battery and a memory card drive add so much to the device size). How is it crappy now?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The map is not the territory, and neither is the spec list the device.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, let's put the specs aside.
Please, explain how the Touch HD hardware is crappy. I am very curious.
Re:Coming to Cydia (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of your arguments are about software. GP stated that HTC hardware sucks. My Touch HD has got an extended battery of 1700 mAh with the same size of the original battery (albeit somewhat heavier). There are still more applications for Windows Mobile (especially useful application like turn to turn navigation systems). Windows Mobile 6.5 works fine on my Touch HD and even 6.1 supports multitasking while iPhone OS does not allow it.
So the only valid point of yours is a somewhat weaker CPU, but I think that the huge, high resolution screen and all the other options more than balance the weaker CPU out.
This should be good (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This should be good (Score:5, Funny)
No matter who wins....we lose?
Hmmm. Nah.
Alien versus Predator:
Do no evil vs OH, SHINY!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoever wins ... apple fanboys lose.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But being one and playing devil's advocate gets you insightful mods, that's nice I guess.
Apple's pulling a Sony (Score:5, Insightful)
How long can Apple keep this up? The iPhone app store has been a great thing, but slam after slam of bad press against it is slowly turning the opinion of the technically inclined. If they don't do something soon, they're going to end up like Sony circa 2007.
Re:Apple's pulling a Sony (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Apple's pulling a Sony (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry, in 3 or 4 years Apple fanbois will be raving about the revolutionary new iTalk and iTrack system that just debuted on the iPhone 6G.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can iPhone users buy the app in another store? I hope so; buying a (smart?)phone for a couple hundred dollars which can *only* run apps from a single store is not very appealing to me.
Re: (Score:3)
1- it's a lot more than a couple hundred bucks, if you take into account the very expensive plan
2- iPhone is very locked-in: pps can only come from tha apple store, unless you jail break it (and lose your warranty + get a chance to have it bricked on apple's next update)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can iPhone users buy the app in another store?
No; but the great thing is, there's an app for that.
Re:Apple's pulling a Sony (Score:4, Interesting)
fear mongering (Score:5, Informative)
jailbroken iPhone with no official warranty or support
Who are you, the writer for "Reefer Madness"?
If you need warranty work done, you simply un-jailbreak it (or restore it from scratch). And not even that is necessary for an obvious hardware flaw.
It doesn't void your warranty.
Unlocking is a different matter - but that also has zero to do with Cydia and alternate App Stores.
Re:Apple's pulling a Sony (Score:5, Funny)
As they say, any press is good press. The unwashed masses are only hearing "Apple, Apple, Apple".
unless it's a cider press. those are bad for apples.
Re:Apple's pulling a Sony (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of this [hubpages.com] Farside cartoon.
Re:Apple's pulling a Sony (Score:5, Insightful)
As a certain other famous 'evil' CEO said "Developers, Developers, Developers".
It may not matter to the end users, but if you are a developer thinking of working out that cool new killer app for the iPhone, hearing that not only does Apple have a horrible record for inconsistent approvals, but even when you are as big as Google and get a signoff from the top levels of the company, you can still have your app pulled retroactively, might mean the difference between giving the project a green light and considering someone else's platform.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're assuming that every developer is making money. You'll find that maybe the top 4 or 5% are making their money back and only the top 1 or 2% are actually making a profit. This is typical when a market is over saturated.
Once large development houses get involved and start making deals the smaller developers will be squeezed out of the market by the costs of the SDK, waiting for publshing
Re:Apple's pulling a Sony (Score:5, Interesting)
There's still a reason for them not to like it.
Have you considered the fact that this sort of behavior will stifle application development by developers? Do you really think Google would have put effort into developing the app for the iPhone if they knew it was going to get rejected? (They were previous told it would be accepted).
Developers are going to see stories like this and be dissuaded from development if their app idea in any way steps on Apple or AT&T's toes by 'duplicating functionality', which is a shame, because a great deal of the time a third-party solution is far superior to the native app.
Especially big developers (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are just some "In my spare time," kind of author, ok maybe you don't care so much. You get the iPhone SDK and make apps and if they get rejected, oh well shit happens. You are just in it for fun and maybe some side money.
This is not the case for real development studios. They are not going to go and spend the money to retrain people on a new development model, and then spend a bunch of man hours bringing an app to a platform, if that app risks arbitrary rejection. They are going to want to know BEFORE committing the resources that it is going to be allowed.
In particular, this could really hurt the iPhone games market. For games on a mobile device to ever really take off, they are going to have to improve in quality. You need things like Nintendo DS games on there. Well, that can be done, but only likely by big game development houses. At this point, EA is at least trying it to some extent. However, game companies are NOT going to invest the time in a platform if they might get their shit pulled because someone at Apple or AT&T got whiny.
Now this case is a big problem since Google got prior approval. That tells the game makers that even if you get the ok, your product still can be pulled. There is literally no way for you to be safe. That could quite easily convince them that the iPhone is a market just not worth developing for. Stick with the PC, consoles, handhelds and so on, screw the iPhone.
While the idea of filtering content for a store is not new, this idea of retroactively shit canning apps for arbitrary reasons, after approval is. You'd better believe that if EA talks to Sony or MS about publishing a game on the console, they game will be cleared for release and that will not be revoked after the fact. Yes, there are licensing requirement that have to be met, but you meet those and you are good. Someone doesn't decide a few months later "Know what? We don't like that, so you can't sell it anymore."
Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Apple's pulling a Sony (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, tell AT&T that they have no interest in renewing their exclusivity agreement regardless of financial incentives if AT&T insists on prohibiting access to basic features of the phone. AT&T needs Apple more than Apple needs AT&T. People aren't buying iPhones because they are on AT&T's network, as much as they are paying for AT&T data plans because its the only way they can use an iPhone.
Apple is, with the iPhone, in a position of strength. But that only lasts as long as other premium smartphones, like those running Android, don't offer a better all-around experience, and if AT&T tries to defend its existing business model by hamstringing the iPhone, it may work in the short-term, but in the long-term its going to make it easier for other phones to displace the iPhone as the mobile device of choice, which will hurt Apple and AT&T both.
Re: (Score:3)
. . . if AT&T tries to defend its existing business model by hamstringing the iPhone, it may work in the short-term, but in the long-term its going to make it easier for other phones to displace the iPhone as the mobile device of choice, which will hurt Apple and AT&T both.
There is no "long-term" in business any more. ATT's only concern is wringing as much money out of today's subscribers as it can today. Apple's only concern is soaking up customer's disposable income with disposable gadgets.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure there is -- in smart businesses. Of course, that often requires keeping the business narrowly and privately held in the hands of people interested in running a business for the long term, or going public in a carefully controlled manner that leaves the real power in the hands of a fairly narrow group of the same kind of people (Google at least attempted to do this.)
Re: (Score:3)
Back in early 2007, when Apple inked the deal, Verizon had 56.8 million subscribers, AT&T had 56.3.
Today, Verizon has 87.7 million subscribers, and AT&T has 79.6.
Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, that's pretty scary. I'd hate to have developed software for a platform, only to find it removed from the platform a few months later as an anti-competitive action because the company that owns the platfrom decides to release their own versions of the same thing. That could put me out of business! And I'm sure the developer agreement with Apple gives them full rights to do this. Yikes. Well, I'm one of the few around here that doesn't have an iphone anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is going to happen with any platform is tethered. It won't matter if it is the Apple's iPhone, Amazon's Kindle or anything else. Unless the purchasers demand a change this won't stop. Don't expect any miracles.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Interesting)
What's going to be really interesting is seeing what happens to apps that use Google Voice to make [free] VoIP calls on Google Android devices...
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
Geeks would scream bloody murder. My parents wouldn't even notice. The EU would slap MS with another "giant" fine. The US *might*, possibly, bring suit against them. Said suit would last 8 years and resolve with a series of fines and injunctions against certain vaguely-defined anti-competitive behaviors. Meanwhile MS would still retain control over 3/4 of the OS and office apps market.
Once again, Apple shows themselves to be Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Why on earth geeks continue to view Apple as a Good Company boggles my mind. They've shown themselves time and time again to be evil, controlling, and dedicated to being as closed as possible. This is just the latest in a long, long line of anti-customer things they've done. Why do people continue to support this behavior?
Re:Once again, Apple shows themselves to be Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Wny on earth **some** geeks would be more accurate.
I'm a geek I'd guess by most definitions and while I own and like my ipod touch I do not think Apple, Google, Microsoft et al are good 'companies' in the sense you mean. All companies, if they wish to remain in buisness, have just one goal: make the most money they can out of each individual customer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Once again, Apple shows themselves to be Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's so much "A Good Company" as "A company that makes well designed, albeit expensive, products." If I had the cash my PC would be a mac and my phone would be an iPhone... at least, if I could use anybody but AT&T with the iPhone. That's a bigger hurde than the cost.
I don't dislike Microsoft because of their business practices; I dislike Microsoft because I don't like the way they design most of their products. YMMV as always.
Re:Once again, Apple shows themselves to be Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't dislike Microsoft because of their business practices; I dislike Microsoft because I don't like the way they design most of their products.
And Apple designs their products such that they are owned and controlled completely by Apple even after you've bought them from Apple. You consider that a good design? I consider that just like Microsoft. Apple's may be a bit easier to use but they suffer from the same primary flaw. You have no control over them.
The only reason I can see for buying an Apple product is that they have excellent marketing. They do a fantastic job of luring in the mindless masses who don't have the wherewithal to actually think through the consequences of their purchases. When I buy something I want to control it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And Apple designs their products such that they are owned and controlled completely by Apple even after you've bought them from Apple. You consider that a good design?
Okay, I'll bite. You have a point regarding the iPhone, but how is an Apple computer owned or controlled by Apple after purchase? Nothing stops you from installing whatever applications or operating system(s) you want.
Not sure I understand the comparison... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not sure I understand the comparison... (Score:4, Informative)
Google Voice for phone calls uses at&t minutes, which don't cost Apple.
Yes but using Google voice to make international calls would be way cheaper than making a phone call on your cell phone with AT&T. At the moment, the iPhone isn't just the device, it's also the infrastructure that supports the iPhone (which you pay gobs for). Google voice offers services that compete with AT&T and the iPhone infrastructure in ways big enough to hurt the bottom line of AT&T, which as you can see from other comments at the least, made this app go pouf disappear.
Re: Not sure I understand the comparison... (Score:5, Informative)
SMS is gold, especially when they can charge you--what is it?--$10/mo for 500 texts. They don't want to lose that by having your SMS data going over the flat-rate data plan. You know, because SMS data are not bits like the 3G network bits, no way they could ever change that. Except, of course, Google has.
I love all the Apple bashing; I'm sure Apple could care less, but AT&T sees a threat, and for the time being, they're the exclusive provider and they set at least some of the rules.
Just the other day, the CEO of AT&T indicated that he knew which way the wind was blowing, and that he didn't expect the lucrative exclusive deal to last forever; you'd think that they'd try a little harder to make iPhone users *want* to stay with AT&T...
It was AT&T (Score:5, Informative)
SMS, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google voice provides unlimited incoming AND outgoing SMS for free. I've been using it on my blackberry because I have unlimited data, but no SMS plan (costs me 25 cents to send a single message). I'm not familiar with the AT&T plans, but if SMS packages are optional add-ons then they would certainly lose money as people realize they have unlimited texting through their google phone number.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't too surprising. At the time the App store was announced, there were vague implications that one of the major reason Apple wanted approval over applications (beyond issues like maintaining battery life, stability, user experience) was that AT&T wanted to control what was and wasn't allowed.
It was stated outright at launch that VOIP apps that allowed use over the cell networks wouldn't be allowed at all. It was implied that tethering applications and IM clients (which compete with SMS) would
Re:It was AT&T (Score:4, Insightful)
Why doesn't Apple just get a list of phone uses that AT&T doesn't like and put them in the dev agreement for the SDK? Just state that any apps involving voice, or tethering etc. are banned. That way developers don't waste their time and money making such apps.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, so AT&T tells Apple to ban an iPhone app that provides a competing service.... would any antitrust lawyers out there mind explaining to me exactly what part of this isn't illegal under antitrust law?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Say it with me now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
... the App Store sucks. This is yet another example of why it's bad that for a given platform, you are required to get your software from a manufacturer approved repository. Don't get me wrong, repositories are great. But not if you're forced to use them, and especially not when the repository owner manipulates the software selection to suit themselves. I smell an anti-competitive lawsuit in the making here.
You forgot the forced nice 30% cut of whatever the developer gets.
Brings up question of future carrier App Store (Score:5, Interesting)
So if AT&T can get an app banned (as Gruber [daringfireball.net] says is the case), what happens later on when the iPhone is not tied to any one phone company in the U.S.? Carrier specific stores? That smells like the stuff people dislike about Verizon... but Apple can't let multiple companies triangulate on what apps they like.
Also interesting is that AT&T seems to allow some apps on other phones they move to keep off the iPhone, it could be because there are just so many more iPhones on AT&T they are really worried about the data load (which would explain why Slingbox is WiFi only on the iPhone but works over 3G on the blackberry).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So if AT&T can get an app banned (as Gruber says is the case), what happens later on when the iPhone is not tied to any one phone company in the U.S.?
Then I'll buy one. AT&T is about the only thing that keeps me from an iPhone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The iPhone already has carrier specific stores in a sense; by country. Netshare has already shown us that AT&T calls the shots for all carriers. Rogers, for example, at the time, allowed tethering on all of their data plans. There is no reason why the app should not have been in the Canadian store, even if AT&T wanted it pulled from the U.S. market.
Doing Google a favor, actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doing Google a favor, actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Estoppel applies here, no? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sean Kovacs, main developer of GV Mobile, says that he had personal approval for his app from Phil Shiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, last April.
If this bit is true and documented, then sue for lost development time. Apple gave assurances they wouldn't do something, Google committed resources, then Apple did it. Whatever Apple's reasoning here for changing their minds, they can't yank the football away any more than a contest promoter could decide not to give awards to a winner.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sean Kovacs, main developer of GV Mobile, says that he had personal approval for his app from Phil Shiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing, last April.
If this bit is true and documented, then sue for lost development time. Apple gave assurances they wouldn't do something, Google committed resources, then Apple did it. Whatever Apple's reasoning here for changing their minds, they can't yank the football away any more than a contest promoter could decide not to give awards to a winner.
Sounds to my (admittedly untrained) ear like a time to apply the legal doctrine of estoppel [wikipedia.org], especially promissory estoppel. If I was Google, I'd be looking to recover as much as possible from Apple here, or (better yet) force the app down their throat, as that would vastly annoy both Apple and AT&T.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Personal approval" is rather different than a legally enforceable contract.
Getting your app shot down without rhyme or reason is the danger any iPhone developer faces. Not only does it lock out open source, but it locks out commercial development as well because nobody wants to face that risk. Eventually, the only people who will be developing iPhone apps are "bottom-feeders" who spend about an hour whipping up some trivial crap and then putting it up for sale hoping that once in a while, somebody will acc
All the hype about phones (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All the hype about phones (Score:5, Funny)
Sigh...TechCrunch (Score:5, Insightful)
TechCrunch is citing AT&T is behind it, yet they have absolutely no evidence to indicate that. It is in both Apples and AT&Ts interest to keep the Google Voice app off the iPhone. TechCrunch is just blaming AT&T so they can keep their Apple fanboyism going.
Re:Sigh...TechCrunch (Score:4, Insightful)
But to your point. I think AT&T has a much stronger incentive to disallow Google Voice, (no more SMS, no more long distance fees, less of a reason to charge extra for a special iPhone package that includes Visual Voicemail, potential to have voice calls driven over the cheaper data network).
Breakup (Score:5, Funny)
Apple: Look, you're suffocating me, we need to take a break.
Google: What's wrong baby? We were doing so well together!
Apple: I TOLD YOU! I JUST NEED SOME SPACE! YOUR APPS ARE ALL OVER MY ROOM!
Google: Fine... Don't come crying to me when your MAPS stop working!
Re:Breakup (Score:5, Insightful)
An interesting point.. perhaps Google should cut off all iphone users from Google services such as search, maps, gmail, etc. etc.
Truth is that many things iphone users like to do come from google, not apple.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You forgot possibly the biggest one: YouTube. Without Flash, the iPhone has to go though another API to access YouTube videos. What if Google decided that it wasn't in their best interest to support that access (or specifically changed it to block iPhones/iTouches)?
Yeah, not going to happen. Still, it would be mildly hilarious, and they could do it.
This is why closed platforms suck (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always nice when companies go and make the case for why closed platforms suck with no effort required on anybody elses part. Apple is just another example. Having a gatekeeper say what you can and can't run on your phone like this was never a good idea, and now we're seeing why.
Apple fanboys will put up with anything, of course. I hope this type of nonsense gets through to the more sensible people out there though.
"duplication of functionality" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure it's occurred to more than a few of us that citing "duplication of functionality" is a gigantic fucking can of worms.
And Apple opened it.
..Trust Apple to maintain a fair marketplace? (Score:3, Insightful)
In a word? NO. Apple+AT&T are clearly operating under their own agenda and any agreements, past, present and future, are subject to change without notice or compensation. You will not be able to depend on them any more than you can depend on Amazon not to delete your books from your Kindle.
This is a risk of putting yourself under the control of companies like these -- they might seem cool now, but are quite subject to change without notice or compensation. The only protection anyone might enjoy is legislative or judicial relief. We have had such relief in the past and it has worked well for "we the people." We seriously need to break the agreement between AT&T and Apple as well as other handset exclusivity agreements along with all manner of other problems associated with mobile phone technologies.
The continuous merging and dealing among technology companies are in need of deeper scrutiny as at every turn they seem to limit or control technological advancement for their own anti-competitive and price-controlling purposes.
This is a shame; Apple should know better (Score:3, Interesting)
This is something that is also valuable with email - Mail.com used to offer free redirection for life but they've since gone back on their promise and now charge for their service. Imagine having an email address that is yours forever - one that simply redirects mail to whatever account you currently have. Change providers? No problem; change your address at the redirector and nobody has to change the email address they reach you at.
Anyone who has changed phone numbers or email addresses knows what a hassle it can be - these redirection services provide a solution to this problem.
Hey, AT&T and Apple - what me, a customer, wants is to have a phone number and email address that is mine - one that will be mine for as long as I want - no matter if my email or phone provider changes or goes out of business. That's what Google Voice provides and AT&T does NOT. Phone number portability is largely a joke as anyone who's tried to keep a phone number knows. Portability doesn't help if you move to a different area code, anyway.
Phone companies like to lock in their customers - one of the ways they do this is through the fear they instill in their customers. If you change providers, you'll have to tell everyone you know that you've got a new phone number. Rather than deal with that nuisance, people accept yet another fee increase and stay with the same provider. This isn't customer service at all - it's corporate service where they inconvenience you to insure that the corporation makes more money. That's why they sabotage "portability" in any way they can - and it's why AT&T doesn't want Google Voice on the IPhone.
And they'd really prefer that you didn't realize that if your phone number is in one area code and your Google Voice phone number is in a different area code that you could be receiving local calls from a much larger area. In areas like Silicon Valley this can make a huge difference in the ability of people to contact you.
Stuff like this is why I do not have an IPhone - it's a nice piece of hardware but since it's tied to AT&T it's not for me. I got away from AT&T years ago and never looked back.
Apple can't hack it without Jobs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now it seems AT&T is walking all over Apple and Apple is just letting them. Is it because Jobs is absent from the spotlight, and he's lost his influence? What is going on that makes them cower in the corner and submit to AT&T? If anything, it should be the other way around. AT&T would be *nothing* without the iPhone, and Apple would be able to go to any other carrier and have them begging at their feet (contracts notwithstanding).
On a completely different note, I wonder when this sort of thing will stop? Carriers have finally let handset developers do what they want, because they realized that companies like Nokia and Palm and Apple make better phones than Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile does, and that they shouldn't inject themselves into the process. This is all thanks to Apple. But these networks are still protective of their cashflow model, trying to use their relative exclusivity and propriety to keep relatively cheap methods of communication off. They charge for SMSes, even though these things actually, *literally* don't cost them anything (the packets in which SMSes are sent are sent or received regardless of whether or not there's an SMS in there) -- especially US carriers. The cost of text messaging in the US far outweighs any other market, for no reason other than it's a million dollar cash cow annually. They keep the Internet crappy, slow, and unreliable so that users can't use it to do anything important, other than get email or browse Facebook, because God forbid you should be able to make a phone call... then that keeps them from charging you $0.40/min when you go over your minutes; or charging you exorbitant monthly fees for voice time. When will all of this change?
Something has to remove their stranglehold over the industry. I get that they want to protect their business model, but they've had it for close to 40 years now in one form or another, and they're stifling change and innovation. And I suppose we can only hope that by doing this, new players will come to market that will be the death knell for the old timers that can't or won't change. And technically, we don't even need a player; all we need is one of the current players to change their tune. Remember the unlimited plans? None of them had it until T-Mobile or Sprint (not sure which) introduced it, and then suddenly everyone jumped on the boat. The first company took an awful big risk to do something like that, but in the end, it paid off.
Let's hope it happens again.
Meanwhile, on my Palm Pre (Score:5, Interesting)
I can install anything I want with no DRM whatsoever. I can even ssh into the phone. The applications are written in plain old Javascript, even the built-in ones, so they can be trivially modified. The Pre is a hacker's dream phone.
It'll be a cold day in hell before I use a closed phone again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's even worse is that iPhone is the only platform that's locked down as bad. All other platforms are open - not just Pre and Android, but also Symbian and WinMo (okay, you might have to shell out some money for a certificate to sign binaries on Symbian, but they won't refuse you one because of "duplicate functionality"). We had an established tradition of open mobile platforms, and Apple is aggressively trying to change it for the worse now (and use the market success of iPhone to drive that). That's wh
Re:Meanwhile, on my Palm Pre (Score:4, Informative)
30? [precentral.net]
Next test: Spotify! (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting test coming up in EU/UK: the "iTunes killing" streaming music service Spotify has announced that they've submitted their client app for the iPhone/iPod Touch to Apple. Cannily, they've got this all over the press [bbc.co.uk] which must have rather put Apple on the spot(ify).
Spotify is nothing revolutionary but its well executed, easy to use and has a pretty good range of music from pop to classical (minus the usual digital hold-outs: Floyd etc.) and seems to have been very well marketed (starting with a Google style not-very-exclusive invitation/introduction system). Its been getting to quite a wide audience (not your usual pop download monkeys). If Apple reject this, then the App Store issue is going to be News in Europe. Could be fun.
Looks like mobile apps are part of their business model: the basic desktop service is free with (not too bad) ads or 10 quid a month for ad-free, but you're going to have to subscribe to use the mobile version. That'd probably put me off, but we shall see...
Apple is truly Evil (Score:3, Informative)
Apple is truly evil these days.
What's sad is all sense and reason totally falls away when it comes to Apple.
Everyone bitches about Microsoft, but as soon as Apple does it, ohhh its all okay! Its okay BECAUSE ITS APPLE!
WTF people...
Paradox of voice + data (Score:5, Insightful)
The carriers think that voice is different than data.
The Internet (and service providers like Google / Skype etc) think that
voice is just another kind of data. (Though a bit of priority for the
packets to reduce latency would be splendid.)
This is just a replay of the old Bellhead vs Nethead battle.
I'm pretty sure the Netheads are going to win eventually, by the
logic of the usefulness of having general data networking to every
device.
But there will be much gnashing of teeth between here and there.
iPhone... There was an app for that. (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps it is time to lower Apple in the Page Rank (Score:3, Funny)
That might get it's attention.
I guess I'm different... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am using a 6 yr. old computer, a 6 year old cell phone and a basic flat-screen TV w/ a $99 cheapo surround system.
And I'm just as happy with the results today as I was 6 yrs. ago when I bought most of it.
I just don't understand why people subject themselves to the BULLSHIT these companies impart on their customers just for a few SMALL incremental improvements in service. I won't even get into how much more money it would have cost me to stay "caught up" with so-called "improvements".
Only One Problem with the iPhone (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Google Voice app is an official application. GV Mobile was not. The latter was pulled from the market yesterday; the former was rejected today.
Re:YAWN (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind of. As a non-iphone-user, it's still interesting to see how far Apple will go before the realise they're working against their hard-won customer loyalty. On the other hand, customers complaining about DRM when they specifically went and bought something that was DRM'd is pretty dumb.
Re:YAWN (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still interesting to see how far "ooh, that's shiny and popular - I must buy it" crowd will go before the realize Apple is working against their hard-earned money. On the other hand, as far as they keep on giving money to Apple, Apple's not giving fuck about few who complain is pretty obvious.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironically, I don't recall any case of Microsoft ever locking developers out of its platforms. Definitely not on the desktop, nor on Windows Mobile (not so sure about XBox). In fact, it's quite the opposite - someone "Developers..." already.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're too young to remember "The job's not done 'til Lotus won't run." Microsoft apparently would make minor changes in MS-DOS and early versions of Windows so that Lotus 1-2-3 (the most popular spreadsheet of the era) wouldn't work right.
The "Lotus myth" was debunked [proudlyserving.com] a long time ago, and the story even made it to Slashdot [slashdot.org].
If you actually want a real example of that, it would be the story of deliberate incompatibility of Windows (3.1 beta, specifically) with DR-DOS, due to a number of specific checks - the AARD code [wikipedia.org]. Which, I agree, wasn't nice at all - especially as the associated emails clearly show it to be a deliberate anticompetitive measure - but it's a very different thing, as the issue there wasn't Microsoft OS doing something delibe