Slashdot Mirror
Why AT&T Killed iPhone Google Voice
ZuchinniOne writes "The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting article about the likely reasons that AT&T and Apple killed the Google Voice application. 'With Google Voice, you have one Google phone number that callers use to reach you, and you pick up whichever phone — office, home or cellular — rings. You can screen calls, listen in before answering, record calls, read transcripts of your voicemails, and do free conference calls. Domestic calls and texting are free, and international calls to Europe are two cents a minute. In other words, a unified voice system, something a real phone company should have offered years ago.'"
AT&T killed google voice because the "Killer App" that the iPhone has (visual voicemail) is completely, totally, and utterly DESTROYED by it.
If you haven't used google voice, let me explain. Somebody leaves you a voicemail on your GV number. Google does voice recognition on it, and sends you an email of the text. In the email is a little widget that allows you to play the audio.
Apparently, the visual voice mail was a HUGELY expensive undertaking for AT&T. Having somebody offer *the* reason to get an iPhone for *free* is really, really scary to them.
Google offered a superior product for infinitely (as in divide by zero) cheaper. AT&T shat their pants, and blocked it.
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
but it's not expensive to send a text, so lets drop the term expensive from this conversaion completely. and lets not call it free either, because you are ALREADY paying your carrier for access to thier network, and part of that deal means people can contact you on your phone with them. exactly what right do they have to impede that because it's a competing application/carrier? i would have thought this would fall under anti competitive laws.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Aside from visual voicemail, the article talks about pretty much everything everyone here already discussed at length in previous stories on this topic. The "good thing" about this article's appearance is that it sheds light on the topic in a forum that many non-geeks will likely see. I'm sure I'm in good company when I say that these issues need to be brought to the attention of the general populace.
Does AT&T advertise with the WSJ? Will they continue to do so after this article? ;) Who knows.
Basically everything you ever wanted that everyone else has failed to provide at a reasonable cost...FOR FREE!
Yes, Comrade!
Whenever I receive a communique from their headquarters, I know I can trust it fully without hesitation or rational thought process. This is the beauty of being inside the One, True Market, where no company has ever lied about their activities before.
Seriously though, if Microsoft released a similar statement, your bullshit detector would have exploded. I don't trust any PR from anyone. Do you think they don't have closed door conversations about destroying competition on an hourly basis? Do you think they're dumb enough to have them on the record?
The first part of it discusses the existence of the rumors, doesn't mention the outright denial, mentions a few features of Google Voice (all of which work with the iPhone without any special app), states someting untrue about Apple and iTunes (says it works "exclusively with iPhones and iPods", which is kind of odd because it also works with computers, both Windows and Mac OS) in a way that it doesn't tie to the Google Voice decision, and tosses out some things about AT&T that it likewise doesn't tie to the Google Voice decision at all.
After that, it goes on to make a generalized attack on the FCC without pointing to any concrete examples, and move on to posting a vague wish list of things that a "national data policy" should focus on, with nothing about how to actually do most of it.
Its also, one might note, an opinion piece (not a news article), on technology-related policy from "a former hedge-fund manager".
Apple blocking Google Voice makes buying an iPhone not even a possiblity now that I have had Google Voice for a month or so.
I know many of these features have existed in other products, but that doesn't change the fact that Google Voice has been as big a lifestyle change as getting TiVo for the first time 7 or 8 years ago.
* The voice mail transcripts are my favorite thing. Perfectly accurate so far. Love being able to read voice mails right from my computer
* Free SMS in a GMail like interface
* Everyone now has my Google Number and all my phones are unified behind that single number and I am now completely free to pick up and switch to a new cellphone as the flood of Android phones come out over the next year
No, it's not, and preserving this kind of access is network neutrality's raison d'être. The nightmare scenario is a provider using its clout to hamper access to a company that happens to compete with another line of the provider's business. It is completely unacceptable. Neither Apple nor AT&T has the moral or legal right to use control over one product line to subdue a competitor in another.
Zero Compensation?!
What's that $24.95 line item on my bill that says "Unlimited data"? I didn't realize I was supposed to be getting that FOR FREE! I'm calling up T-Mobile immediately to request a correction to my bill.
Wait, what? It's not zero compensation for a service they promised to provide?
By the way, the voice component of Google Voice doesn't use any bandwidth. You say what number you want to call, and Google Voice calls the number your at (home, work or cell)--which, by the way, you pay the phone company for (or should I not use that too?)--and when you answer call the other number. That way your Google Voice number shows on the caller ID of the person you're calling.
The phone companies do not want to empower you.
They want to enslave you.
They want to:
overcharge you for text messaging,
use up your minutes (and waste your personal time) with unnecessarily long outgoing messages,
charge you hidden exorbitant roaming charges,
force you to choose a "plan" in hopes that you will err in their favor, rather than switch plans automatically on a monthly basis
give you insufficient notification when your "special promo plan" expires, causing you to rack up $350 in a month, where you used to pay $80 for the same volume of calls, etc etc etc
I find ATT to be one of the most vile corporations in terms of customer service, always looking for a way to cheat, swindle, and bamboozle their users.
Well, what the hell is Apple supposed to do? Allow its competitor to provide the key service of its product: phone calls? That's like Pepsi shipping Coke inside their bottles. Google should promote their service in their own product, not encroach into Apple's turf.
You are a fucking idiot. I would blow my last mod point on you, but bullshit this deep needs a response.
Fine, let me come over and use your shower and all the water I want just because it's in the interest of keeping things fair.
It costs AT&T money to provide that bandwidth.
Do you not notice that those two statements are OPPOSITE EACH OTHER? The original poster had it right. This is what network neutrality is all about. You're already paying for that bandwidth. Your fancy-schmancy iPhone comes with an $80 data package. So google offers a service, USING THE INTERNET YOU'VE PAID FOR, that blows the shit out of the native functionality of the iPhone.
Network neutrality is about selling the bandwidth, the $80 data package, and letting the user use it for whatever they want to use it for. What Apple.AT&T did was limit the use of this purchased internet connection, because it out-competed their offering.
If the electric company charges me a flat rate, I GET TO USE AS MUCH ELECTRICITY AS I WANT. Period. End of story. If a company isn't smart enough to sell its product at an appropriate price, than that company dies. It's called a free market.
When a company poorly prices its offering, and denies a costumer access to a competing offer at a better price-point, that's bullshit. And that's what Apple/AT&T did here.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Corporate speech can be difficult to understand sometimes, so I'll translate a few bits...
The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhoneÃ(TM)s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhoneÃ(TM)s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way
We know best. We have always had the best taste in everything. We'll be damned if we'll let those grubby little customers insult us like that! Sometimes children have to be told no for their own good.
Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.
There is a provision in AppleÃ(TM)s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&TÃ(TM)s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&TÃ(TM)s permission. Apple honors this obligation...
We say! It's all us, we have the power!.....unless Mommy says no.
Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&TÃ(TM)s 3G network.
We haven't actually tried to run the app yet...
* ÃoeApplications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in AppleÃ(TM)s reasonable judgment may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory; and...
But making your phone fart is fine
and the use of unauthorized protocols.
We can't just let those grubby little users use protocols all willy nilly like that, they might soil the internet!
Well, what the hell is [Microsoft] supposed to do? Allow [Netscape] to provide [a] key service of its product: [web browsing]? That's like Pepsi shipping Coke inside their bottles. [Netscape] should promote their service in their own product, not encroach into [Microsoft]'s turf.
Do you still like your line of thinking?
"In addition, the iPhone userâ(TM)s entire Contacts database is transferred to Googleâ(TM)s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways."
About a year ago my step-father bought an iPhone and asked me to help him figure out how to use voice activated dialing - a feature that came standard on his previous cell phone. The iPhone did not come with that functionality, I found out, so I figured there's gotta be "an app for that" and began looking through the App Store. On one of the apps, 95% of which were from companies I'd never even heard of before, stuffed a few pages down on the app description was essentially the statement "In order for Company X to provide this functionality we must upload your entire Contact database to our serves in order to match your voice request to a contact number."
I don't have an iPhone and I haven't looked into the matter since then, but if this is still how voice activated dialing works on the iPhone it makes me wonder what assurances Apple got from those companies regarding use of the Contact database and how Google differs in this regard.