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.
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
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.
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.
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.
This particular article was pretty good though. Thorough and generally well thought out, it also had that kind of shocked anger of someone who only just realized that they are being taken advantage of. I wouldn't be surprised if the author had started out writing a 'tell both sides of the story' kind of article, only to become more informed on the actual situation over the course of his research.
All that being said, I do take issue with one thing...
Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and others all joined AT&T in bidding huge amounts for wireless spectrum in FCC auctions, some $70-plus billion since the mid-1990s. That all gets passed along to you and me in the form of higher fees and friendly oligopolies that don't much compete on price.
That is not how business works. If a certain behavior on their part can maximize revenues, they will implement it regardless of what the upfront costs were. If they had paid $10 for the spectrum, they would still charge high fees because that is what the market is willing to bear and that is what they feel with maximize their revenues and with that their profits. You can argue that the cost of spectrum raises the cost of entry into the market, but I don't see that as what the author is going for here.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?