Slashdot Mirror
Apple, Google, AT&T Respond To the FCC Over Google Voice
We've recently been following the FCC's inquiry into Apple's rejection of the Google Voice app. Apple, Google, and AT&T have all officially responded to the FCC's questions: Apple says they haven't actually rejected the app, they're just continuing to "study it," and that it may "alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging, and voicemail." The interesting bits of Google's response seem to have been redacted, but they talk a little about the approval process for the Android platform. AT&T claims it had "no role" in the app's rejection and notes that there are no contractual provisions between the two companies for the consideration of individual apps. Reader ZuchinniOne points out a report in The Consumerist analyzing some of the statements made in these filings, as well as TechCrunch's look into the veracity of their claims.
1) Be abusive generally.
2) Get cancer.
3) Lie about Google Voice.
4) Die?
here's the thing. the iphone is an amazing device.
everyone is begging google to own them. oh, they give me so much free storage! oh, they support 'open source'!
i think what im really missing is, why does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device? you weren't handed this phone in a government mandate. hell, you can jailbreak the damn thing if you really want to take control of it.
you want GV? get an android phone. before i considered getting my own iphone (about 6 mo ago), i tried out the G1. say you'd never heard of either company in your life, and someone put an iphone and an android phone in front of you and had you make a few phone calls, send a few SMS, check out the browser.
how much do you think you can seperate hardware from software? there's not some nice little line where it makes sense to make a seperation. this is why my thinkpad, running ubuntu, is in general a much worse user experience than using an integrated solution. the vertical integration has created unmatched quality and usability of products. get the government out of this. the government is inherently reactive and slow, technology is proactive. you've got other options, so let apple create freely
Long live the BSD license
Okay, fanboys, stop modding reasonable comments like the above as flamebait ... your bias is showing.
It has nothing to do with bias. To say that 10.N to 10.N+1 is the same as XP SP# to XP SP#+1 is at best a horrible misunderstanding, and at worst a malicious (towards Apple) lie. I'm going to lean more towards it being the latter in this situation, because
1: It's not $100 a year to upgrade, its about $50 a year since 10.3
2: It's a bullshit comparison anyways because you are comparing consistently upgrading to the newest OS on one side and consistently not upgrading on the other
3: If you ignore the fact that it's already a bullshit comparison because you are just pointing out that it costs money to upgrade your OS and doesn't cost money to not do so, it is still a weak comparison, because even though 10.N releases are not as big as Vista was to XP, 10.N releases are much bigger than Windows service packs.
4: Historically Microsoft has followed a 2-3 year release schedule similar to how Apple has the past 7 or so years, they charge more at retail per OS release than Apple does, and they will likely be returning to that sort of release schedule if the Vista to 7 turnover time is any indication. Think about it: 3.0 (1990) -> 3.1 (1992) -> win 95 -> win 98 -> win 2000/ME - > xp ('01) -- *6 freakin years* --> vista (early '07) -> Win 7 (sept 09?).
As to the actual Google Voice thing, I really don't care on anything more than on "the principle of it all" level. "Duplication of functionality" is a dubious reason for Apple to block any application for the phone, especially if the applications do so in a novel way like GV. For me, Google Voice seems like it would be cool if you don't have an iPhone or if you have lots of separate phone numbers, but otherwise I don't really see what is so revolutionary about it. If you don't have an iPhone the voicemail emails would be useful, but if you do have an iPhone it's just visual voicemail. That said if you do have lots of separate phone numbers, the idea of being able to configure which of your numbers ring depending on who is calling is pretty slick. Most everything else GV provides seems to be pretty standard stuff (call forwarding, call history, conference calling, etc). Really as far as I'm concerned the best thing to come as a result of GV is all the e-drama, because it's without a doubt been one of the (if not the) major factors in Apple's still meager but growing openness about the app store.
Apple is the bad guy who is preventing iPhone owners from using the hottest cellphone app, Google Voice.
Except they haven't stopped anyone - they've held the app in review. In the meantime iPhone users either jailbreak for a native app, or use the web client (since GV is not VOIP, it's just a call router - the native app is not core to the experience).
AT&T has nothing to do with Apple's PR disaster.
True enough, except normal people actually don't care about GV (yet). They don't know enough to care, even though they would like it. So it's hardly a PR disaster in the sense it's stopping very few sales (apart from Faux Outrage on Slashdot from people who had no intention of getting an iPhone anyway).
Lots of screaming and crying from Apple loonies
Odd, the only screaming and crying I see is from the Haters. Your post, a case in point.
Android, Blackberry, and Palm owners not caring and loving Google Voice.
And iPhone owners too, as noted - anyone who understands why Google Voice is useful can take the three clicks to jailbreak and install the native app.
So really iPhone users are the only ones NOT complaining...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Far from freeing the US market from SIM locking and carrier lock-in, Apple is trying to export the evil of the US cellular market to Europe.
By "evil" do you mean: "doesn't conform to what I want". But surely you must mean something else, because calling something "evil" just because "you don't like it" would be childish and petulant.
Mine is Good
Cause, of course, it's not like Apple has a motive for making Windows appear less user-friendly... Oh wait...
Face it, iTunes on Windows is a HORRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT, and EXCEPTIONALLY LITTLE of that has anything to do with Microsoft whatsoever.
That goes for QuickTime, too.