Slashdot Mirror
Apple Kills Google Voice Apps On the iPhone
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."
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.? 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).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
I don't know about an iPhone but this app works fantastic on my Blackberry. Every strike against Apple like this means companies like RIM get good press. They need to be careful about this type of activity. On a happy note, I recommend applying for the Beta if you have a Blackberry. It's nice using my personal 8320 for work mobile, home, and personal mobile phone.
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.
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.
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 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...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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."