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.
We're the phone company.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
AT&T told the FCC that they did not have it killed.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/att-to-fcc-we-did-not-block-the-google-voice-app-on-the-iphone/
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
People still read the WSJ? Ever since Fox bought it, the slow decline of the quality and bizarre right wing biases introduced into the articles and editorials began driving me away. It hasn't been readable as a news source for at least a year now.
While this is a small part of the overall features mentioned in the article, the one thing that doesn't make sense is the 'free texting' portion - the SMS still has to be sent to your phone by your carrier, so how would it be any less expensive than normal?
[DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
Here is a full list for the lazy:
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/ An unusual move for Apple, but apparently pretty straighforward.
AT&T denies any role in rejecting the google voice application. Apple, also denies rejecting the application, but claims it is still studying it.
This is sort of interesting to watch, whose business relationship is decaying faster, Apple and Google's or Apple and AT&T's? (Or Microsoft's and Dell or MS and HP, but that's a different thread.)
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
That statement only says that ATT was not involved directly in the Google Voice decision.
It does not say whether or not ATT had previously bound Apple contractually to reject all apps of this type..
FTA: What this episode really uncovers is that AT&T is dying
Awaiting confirmation from Netcraft.
.
Trolling is a art,
And Apple said today it isn't killed, but still under review because it interferes with the iPhone interface. Here is their rationalization for their actions in what they claim is their response to the FCC.
My thanks to daringfireball and John Gruber for bringing this letter to my attention.
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.
Engadget has the filings from all three of the involved companies.
I love how the speculation gets posted here when the official statements from all three companies are readily available. The only major redaction is Google's side of the story on why GV and other apps were rejected.
I really, really hope that both Apple and AT&T get fucked for this behavior. Blatant trust behavior like this cannot be allowed.
From the article:
Earlier this month, Apple rejected an application for the iPhone called Google Voice. The uproar set off a chain of eventsâ"Google's CEO Eric Schmidt resigning from Apple's board
I'm confused. I thought this was over a "conflict of interest."
It seems to me that you cannot make the implication that Apple rejecting an Google Voice set off the resignation of Eric Schmidt. More like, Google Voice exists and now that Google is directly competing with Apple, there is a conflict of interest forcing Eric Schmidt to resign from one or the other.
My page.
Apple just admitted that it was them and not AT&T.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/?sr=hotnews.rss
So much for all that crap you just wrote.
It will be funny to see all the Apple fanboys who were screaming "It was big bad AT&T and not my PRECIOUS Apple who was the bad guy!!!" and how their fanboy minds deal with this news.
Man, Apple couldn't possibly be blowing it more than they are. Google Voice is amazing.
question 1 answer
Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhoneâ(TM)s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhoneâ(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 to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the âoePhoneâ icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Appleâ(TM)s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Appleâ(TM)s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Appleâ(TM)s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hubâ"replacing the iPhoneâ(TM)s text messaging feature. 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. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time... ..We are continuing to study the Google Voice application and its potential impact on the iPhone user experience. Google is of course free to provide Google Voice on the iPhone as a web application through Appleâ(TM)s Safari browser, just as they do for desktop PCs, or to provide its âoeGoogle-brandedâ user experience on other phones, including Android-based phones, and let consumers make their choices
question 2 answer
Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Appleâ(TM)s decision-making process in this matter.
question 3 answer
Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.
There is a provision in Appleâ(TM)s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&Tâ(TM)s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&Tâ(TM)s permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&Tâ(TM)s customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&Tâ(TM)s cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.
question 4 answer
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&Tâ(TM)s 3G network.
question 5 answer
In a little more than a year, the App Store has grown to become the worldâ(TM)s largest wireless applications store, with over 65,000 applications. Weâ(TM)ve rejected applications for a variety of reasons. Most rejections are based on the application containing quality issues or software bugs, while other rejections involve protecting consumer privacy, safeguarding children from inappropriate content, and avoiding applications that degrade the core experience of the i
Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans. No-one sees motorcycles
It helps to understand that AT&T is actually the old SBC. The AT&T name was sold to SBC. My understanding from talking with former SBC customers is that the SBC trademark had little value because the company was so abusive. So, the SBC managers decided to use another name.
Those interested in how that happened can watch Stephen Colbert explain in a 1 minute 14 second video: The New AT&T. If that video is not available, try this one, but that requires watching a commercial.
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".
until they sold wireless, and then left partnership with Sprint, Qwest (fka US West) had a patent for One-Number Service. either your home or office number would ring through to the cell phone if that was on, and to the wireline service when it wasn't.
I suspect the patent can be licensed at this point, since it's no longer in use.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
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
>>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.'>>
Funny thing - Skype App allows much of the same, and it's not blocked. AT&T does not suffer much from it - I'll still pay my monthly fee. Probably just one more glitch in approval process.
So what happens when we're all using and relying on Google Voice, then something like this happens to the service?
Shows what you know, Mr. Anonymous Coward! I don't usually respond to ACs, but I will anyway, Mr Anonymous smarty man!
I don't see anything that did wrong here. You see, Apple had some very good reaosns for what they did. It was an obvious move on their part to continually provide their superior service along with their superior products - it's worth paying what they charge because they're superior and they are cheaper in the long run. We all know that they offer the best overall value - that include TCO. Obviously, the deal with AT&T would have caused us Apple iPhone users some hardship and it would have cost us money. Considering this business decision I think it pretty obvious that Apple did it to protect their outstanding reputation, brand, their outstanding technology that no one else offers, and their customers.
You can post all the press releases you want and spin it to show that Apple is out to screw us fanboys over by gouging us for (mistakenly) commodity hardware in a pretty case - lies I tell you! That's just not so!
Whatever man! I have some great tunes that I need to transfer from my 17" MacBook Pro over to my iPod. I need to take a shower and put on a fresh black turtleneck and put on my Friday night arty glasses because I'm going out with my boys - there's a great show tonight with lots of show tunes. You're not going to wreck my mood!
SBC, which was originally "Southwest Bell", one of the "baby bells" created by the breakup of AT&T, and which had purchased several other baby bells in the intervening period, in 2005 also purchased AT&T (not just the AT&T name), and applied the AT&T name to the whole post-merger organization.
So, the new AT&T is, very much, the old (pre-1984) AT&T, even more than the 1984-2005 AT&T was.
I forward my AT&T land line number to my Google Voice number in order to block the constant AT&T telemarketers that call me.
End phone exclusivity. Any device should work on any network. Data flows freely.
In general a good idea, but I'm not quite sure how you get Qualcom CDMA phones to work on a GSM network.
Transition away from "owning" airwaves. As we've seen with license-free bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering with each other. Let new carriers emerge based on quality of service rather than spectrum owned. Cellphone coverage from huge cell towers will naturally migrate seamlessly into offices and even homes via Wi-Fi networking. No more dropped calls in the bathroom.
I've had WiFi-enabled phones connection over Verizon FIOS. They were unusable in WiFi mode, dropping calls and connections like crazy. Generally, phone would ring, you would answer, there would be nobody there. Of course, Verizon also cells cellular service and digital phone over FIOS, so they have a vested interest in VoIP not working, don't they?
End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies. TV channels are like voice pipes, part of an era that is about to pass. A little competition for cable will help the transition to paying for shows instead of overpaying for little-watched networks. Competition brings de facto network neutrality and open access (if you don't like one service blocking apps, use another), thus one less set of artificial rules to be gamed.
While we're at it, why not end exclusivity deals for power companies as well! Oh wait... maintaining a cable plant is expensive. So expensive that broadband wireless is probably cheaper. Plus, people object to having their street dug up 10 times in a row by different companies, and even with just Verizon and Comcast they have a nasty habit of "accidentally" cutting each other's wires.
Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and phones. It should more than double every two years. To homes, five megabits today should be 10 megabits in 2011, 25 megabits in 2013 and 100 megabits in 2017. These data-connection speeds are technically doable today, with obsolete voice and video policy holding it back.
Once you've got a fiber network in place, then it is just a question of replacing the transmitters and receivers, so this is actually doable. Communication companies are reluctant to throw away working equipment, so unless they have competition driving it, they are not going to bother. Wireless bandwidth is not going to double every couple years, in fact, it is going to get worse! The more people using wireless, the less bandwidth available for each customer.
Unasked question: Why is it considered normal and acceptable in the US to pay over $100/month for communication, when most people in the world get better service for a tenth the cost?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The management is SBC.
From Apple's response: "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."
So Apple "does not know" what Google Voice does, they just need to "ponder" it some more.
I wonder how FCC officials like being treated like idiots. Hopefully Apple is about to find out.
The ability to jump to a specific message has been there for a decade, no one took advantage of it (in fact, most disabled it). All they did was create specific calls that navigated the crazy tree for you. Crawl around in a Meridian for a while...
And voice to text has been in almost all carrier grade switches for at least 3 years. Most charge for it, Google didn't.
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
I'm really glad to see that AT&T is embracing technology and digital freedom. It reminds me of when the RIAA was introduced to MP3s and P2P networking. I'm sure that the AT&T execs are busy soiling themselves over VOIP rather than finding ways to embrace the technology and provide new services.
I knew that if I posted that line enough times, eventually somebody would dredge the referent back up for me. Thanks for digging out a lost archive from 1992! Great stuff. Now to find the original...
Help stamp out iliturcy.
OTOH ATT has to relies on direct payment from customers for real services. It has to provide a level of service to keep customers, a level of service that likely has high marginal costs. So the article states the bleeding obvious. Of course ATT does not like google voice anymore than it liked the competition for cheap long distance or the ability of cell phone users to make intrastate calls at a fraction of the cost of a land line.
What makes no sense is suggesting that an incumbent would provide such a profit destroying service. It would be like saying the WSJ should set up a competing site that all the features of the premium site but at no charge.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
..without listening??
Assuming jazzmans post (which is uncited) is correct (and by the tone of the post i assume you are related to apple??) then 90% of people who posted afterwards need to read all posts
But then who wants to pay for a conversation where they don't get to speak?
Wait! Whats a sig?
As far as I understand, you can still use google voice with the iphone and AT&T the same way you would if you had a lesser featured Razr right? They havent gone as far as banning calls from the google voice service or prevented you from doing DTMF feature selection the way the youtube videos suggest right? I don't have a google voice account (apparently on a waiting list) so I cant check for myself. I've been fairly happy with my iphone aside from this and Its been jailbroken which brings up another point, cant they release the google app through Cydia for the time being?
Is claimed to be a work of Steve Friedl et. al. link
Purported to be derived from "DEC Customer Service Memorandum", which appears to be lost.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
While some of this (particularly how vauge "core-experience" arguments can be) is a bit unsavory, it seems to be fully within the Terms and Conditions given when the phone is bought and when the AT&T account is opened. My major objection is that the data-plan is not truly unlimited, in that AT&T should more readily disclose the VOIP exclusion (or find a way to debit minutes for VOIP calls) and the limitations on video over 3G (either Apple or AT&T). Weather or not this is acceptable is up to the purchaser, but I can't see how anyone who took the time to actually read any information on the phone or the contract from AT&T wouldn't have expected these kinds of limitations. I certainly understand how folks could be upset about some of this, but I can't fault AT&T or Apple on the disclosure issue.
My second thought is that the App Store 2 week waiting period is not that unreasonable for software deployment. I think developers were completely unreasonable to expect a QA process worth anything under that load to be finished in a few days, and Apple should do their part to prioritize security and compatibility updates over feature or new-release applications. However, as is developers simply need to be more intentional and regimented in their releases and take advantage of Apple's willingness to QA their applications and help them in the long run produce apps that don't suck so bad they never get repeat customers.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.
There is a provision in Apple's agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T's cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T's permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T's customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T's cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.
Makes it seem like though they didn't actually talk to AT&T about Google Voice, they could have anticipated their reaction on the matter, leading to where we are today.
today is spelling optional day.
I know the opinion is ringing your bells, but it is just an opinion.
RLH
So uhh, if I have a jailbroken iPhone, can I get this app somehow? Because I'd really, really love to stick it to Apple on this one :p
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
For example:
Okay, so Apple is saying that no contract with AT&T affected their decision to remove the Google Voice application from the iTunes Store. But wait, what do they say in the _next section_!?
WTF?
Then they go into "asscovering mode" by saying they don't know what VOIP is:
Personally, I don't have a google voice account. From what I've read, google voice actually uses the normal phone system (so it still requires that you have a phone account). It's just a service.
IMO, Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on. The only argument they have is that it replaces "core functionality" of the iPhone. That argument is completely bogus too, because that is just preventing competition (and may be considered monopolistic behavior). Sure, that's not unusual for Apple. But I think now their position is different. They aren't the underdog in the smartphone industry, they are one of the top dogs. They can't just do whatever they want while ignoring existing anti-trust legislation.
Most of that was free PR, with a few wiggle-room sentences...
Did you collude with AT&T:
"From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration."
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.
Google voice is also US centric. Why should I, as a Canadian give a damn? I have access to Truphone, which is not a free service but cheap. I have yet to use any VOIP software or service with my iPhone. I don't see the point for me right now.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Additionally, AT&T claims that they played no role (big surprise). http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aqdGSASBXcgc
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.
I haven't seen it discussed, but transcription is one of the most important features to Google and it is a large reason why they are willing to offer Google Voice for free. Why you ask? Training. Google voice's free transcription is a huge voice to text training database.
I have been using it since before it was Google Voice (e.g. grandcentral) and this was an important reason for Google to acquire it.
Google gets a LOT of value from every voice mail that comes in, is transcribed, and then is rated by users as to how useful it is.
Yes, it is good already, but not nearly perfect and they are working on it for one reason - voice search. And voice search is an up-coming Google killer-app that Bing/MSFT and Yahoo have no answer to.
(Neither does Apple, yet.)
Additionally, AT&T has (unsurprisingly) claimed that they had no role in the blocking. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aqdGSASBXcgc
The big surprise in Apple's memo is that they claim that Google's voicemail "disables" visual voicemail. AFAICT, they're claiming that Google, by providing a non-AT&T phone number where people can call you and leave you messages that you can fetch from your iPhone, is constructively disabling visual voicemail.
Man, I hope they don't hear about postcards.
It will be funny to see all the Apple fanboys who were screaming "It was big bad AT&T and not my PRECIOUS Apple who was the bad guy!!!" and how their fanboy minds deal with this news.
You can find a fanboy response here. Although I guess it isn't sensationalist enough for your tastes. Although I don't remember any screaming beforehand. Is it possible to scream in text? I guess there's caps-lock.
... and then they built the supercollider.
No, this is /. It is way more like Ford shipping Buick motors in their cars, than it is Pepsi shipping Coke in their bottles.
All points of time and space are connected.
Gee...I wonder what would have been said if MS had responded to the antitrust allegations of Netscape with the following:
Contrary to published reports, Microsoft has not rejected the Netscape Navigator application, and continues to study it. The application has not been bundled with Windows because it appears to alter Windows' distinctive user experience by replacing Windows' core web browsing functionality and Microsoft user interface with its own user interface for web browsing and email. Microsoft spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver internet functionality of Windows. For example, on Windows, the Internet Explorer icon that is always shown on the desktop launches Microsoft's web browser application, providing access to Favorites, History and email with Outlook Express. The Netscape Navigator application replaces Microsoft's email by routing emails through a separate Netscape Navigator application that stores any email, preventing email from being stored in Outlook Express, i.e., disabling Microsoft's email. In addition, the Windows user's entire Contacts database is imported in to Netscape Composer, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Netscape that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time...We are continuing to study the Netscape Navigator application and its potential impact on the Windows user experience. Netscape is of course free to provide Netscape Navigator and its Netscape-branded user experience on other operating systems, including Unix-based operating systems, and let consumers make their choices.
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!
Did you actually read that link?
It was their decision, but they were obligated to decide a certain way because of AT&T. A nice bit of doublespeak. Why would a smart business like Apple want to get into trouble with a giant like AT&T when it can simply wait until the contract is up?
Thanks for the great link!
There's a lot of BS in that article, but a couple of things which particularly struck me as ridiculous:
disabling it??? GV wouldn't disable anything - Apple's Visual Voicemail would still be there, and if someone called the iPhone directly, it would still work just fine. Nothing's disabled at all!
Hmmm... Google Voice does have a privacy policy, as I recall....
I think that's pretty clear about how the data will be used.
If it ever came out that AT&T blocked the app it would almost mean the end for the iPhone At&T contract. It is the only reason that Apple admits to this. It make no sense for Apple to refuse GT. I've been in the board room and sometimes the public statements are not based in fact. There is no credible reason presented to date that would make sense for Apple to refuse google talk unless it is to preserve the contract with AT&T and the other telcos.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
It doesn't matter what Apple "officially" wrote. There was a phone call from Randall/AT&T to Steve/Apple saying that google voice can't be allowed on the iPhone and it would be "best" if they didn't allow it now.
That's the way these big companies work. Once you know and connect with someone at another large company that can actually get things done, you tend to cherish those relationships and do things to maintain them.
How many foreign countries does T-Mobile or Verizon have cell coverage in? Ok, how many does AT&T?
215 countries is the AT&T answer. When you get a worldwide cell phone plan from AT&T, you can travel almost anywhere and be covered.
Hey, Coke tried shipping Pepsi inside their bottles. They called it New Coke.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I can't remember the last time I had to make a conference call, so for me much of this is a non-issue. Everyone at least digitally signed their willingness to allow Apple to dick around with the scope and style of the additional applications made available, yet in threads like this it seems to be non-iPhone owners that are really throwing a stink. Why do you guys care so much what is or isn't in my phone.
*If I remember correctly prior to rejection it wouldn't let me use anything and google just said that it wouldn't work with the browser
**OK, I only just got my gvoice invite so I'm still not quite familiar with all of the functionality, but I'm sure there's cool stuff google threw in that I have missed.
Tell him that most of the functionality of google voice can be accessed through Safari on the iPhone. Perhaps then google won't 'suck' quite as much ; )
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?
So does that mean when GV comes to Canada, Apple will be going to bat for the Canadian AT&T, Rogers? Rogers has exclusivity with the iPhone in Canada, so it's basically the same scenario. The thing with Rogers though is that they charge insane rates for service that they soon realize people are going to get for free one day. Teens going over their limit in SMS are their bread and butter. I'd be surprised if Rogers will sit by the wayside. Go Blackberry!
This signature has The Force
I've had the google voice search app for some time now on the phone. Although it's as easy to use as it can be (you run and hold up to your face to start talking) it simply is not as useful as typing - yes, even on an iPhone.
Similarly for me the new "Voice Control" feature of the phone is a nice gimmick, but not really even as quick as using someone I have as a favorite or have recently called. And sometimes it simply is not right...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"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.
It's bizarre that you condemn Apple's business then actually believe the propaganda on their site. Yes, they are smarter than you.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
Monopoly vs non-monopoly perhaps?
The iPhone is not an open platform, and never has been. Apple makes no illusions about that - it's their gaff, and their rules. If you want the open platform with hackability and freedom from the closed, carefully controlled vertical architecture then there's Android. There are also a ton of other phones out there , so you are free to move away from the iPhone if it doesn't work for you.
The iPhone's app store is a sandbox, controlled by Apple. It's not quite the same as a desktop OS - at least not yet; the way the iPhone has really brought mobile computing to the fore, it may end up going that way.
Do I like this? No, of course not. Is it anything like muscling Netscape illegally out of the browser market? Not by a long shot.
The problem is too many old school grey hair managers stuck in the 80s thinking.
The day a carrier gives me free unlimited sms (max 2000/mo non-commercial) and also unlimited voice to all carrier mobiles+local + LD to 20 countries for a fixed rate of $20/mo including 1gig of data I will finally see happiness.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
That's a poor analogy. Web browsers were not a key service of Windows when Netscape Navigator was released. The primary function of iPhone is the phone service. If Apple allows Google to change that, it would be like allowing Microsoft to change the Linux kernel or Linux hackers changing Windows kernel or its GUI, a bad thing, obviously.
Everytime i see apple + at&t , I think of steve jobs and his blue box and phreaking.
Hows it feel Steve?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Um, ATT doesn't have coverage in those countries. They just have roaming deals. And for a large portion of those countries, renting a *SATELLITE* phone is cheaper than roaming with your cell phone.
T-Mobile, on the other hand, has actual wholly-owned and branded as "T-Mobile" subsidiaries in a large number of European countries.
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
[...] if this is still how voice activated dialing works on the iPhone [...]
FYI, the iPhone 3GS has voice commands built-in now. Too bad it wasn't there from the start...
gcc: no input sig
The difference between GV and the examples you gave is the termination type. GV uses the voice network to terminate both endpoints of the call and VoIP in between. For call quality, that is key (at least for me). Granted I'm trusting AT&T not to drop my call, but luckily in Georgia they are okay. I guess the old Cingular network provides for better coverage than our brethren in the SFO and other areas!
My point was about AT&T's dominance, hence the focus on US -> Intl. I've tested SIAX to my PBX at home with okay quality. Interesting note is that SIP and IAX work fine on wi-fi but no-go using SIP over 3G.
Apples to Oranges comparison. Last i checked, Pespsi Co was not a convicted monopolist like Microsoft is. Monopolists have to play by different rules according to the law.
FYI, the iPhone 3GS has voice commands built-in now. Too bad it wasn't there from the start...
Perhaps so, but this fact doesn't address RCourtney's concern about upload of contact lists to untrustworthy parties.
Microsoft did say that. The response: The U.S. DOJ put Microsoft on probation, such that they are watching Microsoft's every move. The European Union ignored the Netscape issue, but now they've come back and demanded equal representation for all other browsers.
Meanwhile Gates and Ballmer laugh since they probably think their power is greater than the government's power ("They can't touch us. Why - we'll just move overseas. Fear of American job losses will make the politicians bow at our feet.").
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Perhaps if Apple was threatening other phone makers or carriers with something bad happening to them if they included Google Voice, then you may have a point. Your "line of thinking" should recognize the difference between having a monopoly and abusing a monopoly.
If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
Well, what the hell is Apple supposed to do?
Sell good phones and innovate. Of course, most of the major features in the iPhone (AppStore, multitouch, visual voice mail, etc.), Apple has copied from others.
Allow its competitor to provide the key service of its product: phone calls?
Apple doesn't provide a service, it sells phone hardware.
Google should promote their service in their own product, not encroach into Apple's turf.
Apple should be thanking their lucky stars that Google still bothers providing special services for the iPhone. Imagine: no Google maps, no Gmail, no Google Books, no YouTube, etc.
Instead, Apple is trying to build a Microsoft-style monopoly, and that's just evil.
Apple, it Just Works! It Just Works Just so long as you know how to work around it!
Nice analogy - ford does ship toyota motors in some of their cars. In fact, there are lots of cross mfr. motor products and collaborations. From the sound of things, GV is just embarrassingly superior (and also a direct competitor to the iPhone). I've got something almost as nice with vonage, but if I could get 2-3 numbers inbound and do the rest of the GV things, I think that'd be ideal.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Ah here we are - whenever Apple are doing something that's bad for their consumers, someone always comes along with the argument of "But they're only trying to make as much profit as possible".
Sure. When there's a story about MS doing something annoying, do you go "Well what are they supposed to do, let competitors have a chance to make some money, when MS could make even more?"
Sorry. We judge them on their actions. If I see a company offering a poor service, it's fair game to criticise them. No one steps in to plead "But don't you know they could make even more profit by screwing you over? What are they supposed to do!" Except when it's Apple, it seems.
If the only defence for their actions is that it benefits Apple, that's hardly a ringing endorsement. And every other phone on the market can run applications from anywhere without needing corporate approval, so the answer to "What the hell is Apple supposed to do" is "Do what every other company manages to do".
I don't think anyone is claiming that what Apple should do should be illegal. Yes, that factor applied to the Netscape/MS case, but even if it was legal, even if they weren't a monopoly, it would still be annoying if MS actively prevented you from running Netscape (and note that they didn't actually do that, the legality issue was over something else, so again, your point is completely irrelevant and off-topic).
Would you like Windows if you couldn't run apps that MS hadn't approved? Would you like any platform - monopoly or not - where that was true?
If you want the open platform with hackability and freedom from the closed, carefully controlled vertical architecture then there's Android. There are also a ton of other phones out there
Yes, and that is exactly the point being made. It's why people are criticising the Iphone - so that people know about its flaws, and look to other phones. No one is claiming that Apple are breaking the law - that's a straw man. But it is fair game for people to criticise them for offering such a locked down product.
I mean, people bash Windows all the time - do you go pleading "But you could run Linux" and suggest they not be allowed to criticise anything about Windows? Indeed, most of the criticism likely comes from people who run Linux or have a Mac - why are they allowed to criticise Windows, but non-Iphone users are not allowed to criticise Iphones?
I only wish we heard more of these alternative phones on Slashdot. Instead it's all Iphone Iphone Iphone.
Straw man. Who said anything about it being illegal?
If the only defence for their actions is that it benefits Apple, that's hardly a ringing endorsement. And every other phone on the market can run applications from anywhere without needing corporate approval, so the answer to "What the hell is Apple supposed to do" is "Do what every other company manages to do".
In other words, Apple is like a lot of companies, including Microsoft and AT&T ... it's owned and operated by dicks.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Apple hasn't killed Google Voice
The best way to predict the future is to invent it
"That's a poor analogy. Web browsers were not a key service of Windows when Netscape Navigator was released. The primary function of iPhone is the phone service. If Apple allows Google to change that, it would be like allowing Microsoft to change the Linux kernel or Linux hackers changing Windows kernel or its GUI, a bad thing, obviously."
True. Internet Explorer did not even ship with the original release of Win95.
My point is that Google is not altering the phone service of the iPhone. Rather it is providing a different interface and additional features using the core Apple system. This is the same thing that Netscape was doing on Windows. It used the same components of the OS to route the data. It just provided a different interface and arguably better features.
Furthermore, every cell phone's "primary function is the phone service". What causes people to buy one phone over the other in most cases are the features that phone provides above just making phone calls.
When have you seen an Apple iPhone commercial focused on the phone service of the iPhone? Instead you see commercials about all the other functions and apps it provides.
For the record, MS actually did allow user to have other companies providing key services, and allowed even before MS was forced to separate IE from the system. Also you're completely free to fill up a pepsi bottle with Coke for your own private use. No-one's going to stop you. Unlike when you wish to use a program/service Apple isn't particularly fond of.
Yeah, I love opening a web browser to make a phone call from my chosen phone number.
I personally use a BlackBerry Curve. I can load anything I want on it. I speak with my wallet by not buying an iphone.
Apple just admitted that it was them and not AT&T.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/?sr=hotnews.rss
So much for all that crap you just wrote.
This is the craziest thing I ever heard. Here is a line from the letter apple sent to FCC. "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."
Does it mean that Apple own my contacts? Why would they care where I keep my contacts, voice mail, and other personal details. After all, its my data.
In essense that's sort of what my point is. On /. though, whenever something like this is raised, parallels are always drawn between MS and Apple in a "If MS did this, everyone would be crying about it!" or even that monopoly concerns should apply where they clearly do not.
I have an iPhone myself and there is plenty to criticise about it - I don't like some of the app store policies and some of the design decisions, but overall I like it.
What I object to, is when people complain about how locked down and controlling and closed the iPhone platform and app store is, as if it's some great surprise that they suddenly found out every time it happens. That's not to say criticism itself is wrong.
Other than the apps that don't work in 10.3/10.4 of course. I'm not really a mac user myself, but I do remember the headache of "oh, this app only works on OSX 10.5, you'll need to find another"
Off the top of my head, front-ends for OpenVPN come to mind, though there were others as well.
Uh? Apple doesn't sell phone calls, they sell phones, which are used to make phone-calls. Seems anything that allows one to better make calls would sell more phones, which should be a plus for Apple.
I've got an iPhone, and it's got a SIP application and a calling-card application.
However, the "apple store" SIP app doesn't work over edge/3G, though the jailbroken one does.
My guess is that, if GV does do VOIP or SIP, they weren't willing to cripple it to wifi-only for Apple's stupid contracts with AT&T etc.
Actually neither of those analogies fits, but since we're making car analogies here, I'll just stick with that:
It's like a company shipping a car with wheels that only run on their roads, which are conveniently lined with toll booths. Another company comes along and makes wheels for the car that allow it to travel freely on all roads, and then the car company blocks those wheels from being installed on their cars.
No existe.
Perhaps so, but this fact doesn't address RCourtney's concern about upload of contact lists to untrustworthy parties.
My point was that uploading the contact list to 3rd parties is no longer a requirement to get voice dialing if you have the 3GS. I wouldn't trust a 3rd party with my contact list, that's for sure ;)
gcc: no input sig
So both Apple and AT&T are denying responsibility for the Google Voice app. There is only one possibility then; the App Store has gained sentience and is now taking Apple's directives to their logical conclusions. Expect news of Pre and Android users mysteriously disappearing in the next few days.
Hmm...
Emphasis added. Why are those two weasel words necessary? What does "belief" have to do with "law"? Sounds like they're giving themselves an out that they really don't need to do; a corporation does not "believe".
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I'm not quite sure how you get Qualcom CDMA phones to work on a GSM network.
Use something like the Qualcomm MSM7600 chipset in the new HTC Touch Pro 2, which provides a quad-band GSM as well as CDMA radio. Now, carriers preferring lock-in will undoubtedly disable either the GSM or the CDMA functionality of the phone in firmware (or use another Qualcomm single-radio chipset such as the MSM7200), but it is *technically* possible to do, and may become a reality given some clever firmware hacking. Or maybe if you just buy the international, unlocked version.
Da Blog
Analysis:
8 paragraphs of shit polished to gleam like a mirror.
1: We don't like diversity or innovation on *our* hardware (no, when you buy it it is not yours, you are merely buying a non exclusive licence to use it as we see fit)
2: admit to collusion? do you think we're crazy!
3: formula answer.
4: Ask google
5: cut and paste from AUP
6: see 5