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.
Isn't that the whole point of iphone apps?
Summary of this dupe:
Apple is the bad guy who is preventing iPhone owners from using the hottest cellphone app, Google Voice. They flat out admitted it in the FCC response. Much gnashing of teeth and hair pulling from the "Apple can do no wrong. Teh iPhone is teh best thing EVER!!! crowd".
AT&T has nothing to do with Apple's PR disaster.
Lots of screaming and crying from Apple loonies and all sorts of kooky theories trying to make Apple out to not be the culprit "Apple is lying to cover AT&T to the FCC!!!"
Android, Blackberry, and Palm owners not caring and loving Google Voice.
Just like the RIAA, the MPAA, and other such entities, the cellular and phone companies are dinosaurs of an early technological age, and they are holding us back.
Cellular networks should, just like line-based internet access utilities, be simply network providers that sell access to their network from any standards-compliant device we want to use. Everything would just be another end-point of the Internet on a TCP/IP network, with different applications providing diverse needs: voice, video, pictures, text are nothing but data. Sell your consumers data transfer and connection capabilities and let us choose what we want to do with this access, instead of trying to profit from stupid things like SMS and infinitely complex plans: in the end, the cellular providers would benefit from this kind of system, as more uses would emerge out of the free-market system and would end up giving them more customers. Things would be simpler, access would be cheaper too. Everyone would win.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
What's there to "reverse engineer"? Apple already has a competing product, MobileMe / me.com.
The difference between Google and Apple's products is that Google's product is free and isn't tied to any particular hardware platform and works well on many devices in addition to the iPhone. Apple doesn't want to offer that kind of product because they want to tie all their products together and lock their users in.
How could Apple possibly know what "end user experience" best suits me? If I install Google Voice, then that -IS- the end user experience I want! If Microsoft pulled that, they would get dinged for trying to push out the competition. Replace "Google Voice" with "IE" for example in Apple's reply, and "iPhone" with "Windows". This is exactly why the iPhone software environment is poison. Apple should not be allowed to decide what kind of "end user experience" I want on my hardware. Yes, if I purchased the hardware from Apple for the "hardware experience", then that means that I liked the "hardware experience" over other vendors, but that doesn't mean I like, or should be required to use their software! All "computing devices" should be "reconfigurable" using software, thats why software exists! Not to lock you into some Nazi form of "I know best what is for you" mentality. Open the devices up vendors!
Related: Buy the phone first, then choose your cell service vendor! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Enough with hardware-cell service vendor tie-up aggreements!
why does anyone have the right to install whatever they want on the device?
I invite you to study the concept of ownership. If I pay $600 for a piece of hardware, I have every right to do whatever I want with it. It's the whole point of buying hardware, honestly. If I wanted a restricted environment with no control, I'd rent my phone.
That said, AT&T should have the right to block my use of the network if they don't like what I'm doing on it, but at no point should Apple even slightly get involved. This 'walled garden' concept is harmful to consumers and developers alike.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Heh, that's a funny situation for Apple to be in. I guess Apple is no longer interested in just selling you the hardware and a good OS, they want to sell you a substantial number of the applications as well.
I don't think it's about Apple wanting to see you a substantial number of apps, I think it's about Apple not wanting the core features of their phone to be based on the whims of a third party. It's kinda like the situation of Office on the Mac back in the 90's when MS threatened to kill Office which would have basically ended corporate use of Macs.
TechCrunch claimed that apple's claims were untrue. They did this by ignoring the little bit were the purpose of google voice is to replace your existing phone service. So while they are correct that the google voice app does not rip out and replace these features, using google voice logically supplants them. If your phone identity is not your google identity and not your provider identity then the apple apps might as well be removed.
It's a completely bogus self serving argument. It's like arguing that it's not vehicular manslaughter because you struck a pedestrian, after all they could have not been in the way, so really they just used you as an agent of suicide.
Apple's position is clearly that by letting google extend their platform to the iphone they would clearly gain converts to it, but without letting apple control that environment they lose the ability to provide distinction, and maintain their competitive advantage.
whether or not, Apple's position has any validity is not is something that can and should be legitimately argued. But it should be argued at face value, not skirted around with logical fallacies.
Apple isn't contractually required to ever give an accept/reject answer on an app submission (G)
No, but the FCC and FTC may require them to, regardless of contract.
They don't have to reverse engineer it, they can just keep it in limbo forever if they want, it's safer that way.
If Apple can't compete with Google apps on their own hardware and platform, they have already lost.
The agreement with Apple requires confidentiality with regards to the app approval process.
iPhone developers are bound by contract with Apple not to make information available to the public about communications with Apple over the app review.
If I was still using the Mac OS that I had in 2002, it would essentially be unusable. QED the wintel OS is cheaper (no money spent in 7 years) versus the Mac OS, because I had spend money to keep my Mac working.
Since my time and productivity are worth money, the amount I have saved by using Mac OS X over Windows over that same period is orders of magnitude larger than the cost of Microsoft's OS.
-b
myselfmusic
Google Voice stands to cost AT&T money. Apple won't lose a thing by offering it-- in fact, they stand to lose iPhone sales for rejecting it when apps for it are available on competing devices. In light of this, who is more likely to be the force behind the rejection?
As for the argument Apple is putting forward, that is just BS. If I put GV on my iPhone it's because I *want* it there.
And as for AT&T's argument, "Hey, look, we allow GV on other devices on our network!"-- No, it's not that they're allowed, it's that AT&T simply can't prevent them from being installed and used. Apple is the sole (official) gatekeeper to getting an app on the iPhone and under contract with AT&T, so it's clear they're doing AT&T's bidding here. I don't know why Apple is taking the lion's share of the blame by saying they're still evaluating it, but my guess would be some sort of quid pro quo with AT&T.
The whole thing stinks, and I hope the FCC realizes it and opens a can of whoop-ass.
~Philly
PS - Please learn WTF Google Voice does before commenting. It is NOT a VoIP application despite a dozen people saying or implying it is in their posts already.
Then you buy an iPhone and you jailbreak it.
Since you did not do so, you have other reasons for not wanting an iPhone. But don't pretend they are technical because at the core they are not.
Perhaps they were legal -- Apple has claimed jailbreaking is against the law.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Apple, i.e. Steve Jobs, have always been psychotic control freaks. It's their strength and failure.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Seriously? Another expense of what, 10-20 USD? Is your time is worth that little to you?
The GV app is still just an app. It doesn't replace any of the Apple apps. They're still there and still fully functional. What it does do is make them redundant.
Instead of giving people your cell number, you give them your Google number. At that point, all your voicemail is kept on the Google service, all your calls are routed through the Google service to whatever phone(s) you choose to have the calls go to. You are no longer tied to Apple's Visual Voicemail (which by most people's accounts hasn't worked properly in quite a while anyway) nor are you limited to AT&T's network anymore. The same applies to SMS and so on as well. Use your Google number instead of your iPhone number and you can get the messages on any/all your phones rather than just your iPhone.
The GV app also allows you to make calls out through Google's network. Your phone dials Google, then dials out from Google to where ever. With the apps on the various platforms, this is essentially transparent. You just use the dialer in the GV app instead of the Apple dialer. It doesn't sync your contacts to the Google servers as such. Like all apps on an iPhone, it has access to your contacts directly, so doesn't need to store them on the server. Not that it matters much given you can use Google Sync to do it, or even us iTunes itself.
Having said all that, the Apple phone apps are still all there and you can use those as well if you want. But if you do, CallerID will show your cell # instead of your Google number. If people call that number, you lose things like voicemail transcription features and so on.
I am basing this on the functionality in the applications on other platforms such as Android and Blackberry. I doubt the app for the iPhone would be any different in functionality, only in appearance.
But no, the app doesn't replace the Apple ones. It merely supersedes them and essentially makes them redundant.
[...] 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 [...]
Oh no! How terrible! But what if THATS WHAT THE USER WANTS?!
I hate the arguments that somehow Apple gives you better quality hardware for the higher prices, when the hardware is the same as any Windows computer.
I hate the arguments that Microsoft is evil for some reason, but when Apple does the same, it is perfectly fine (e.g. activation of Windows vs. activation of an iPhone, or how Intel had unique identifiers in their chips accessible by software, but when they do the same in the iPhone - not a problem).
I hate the arguments that Microsoft is evil when 10 year old hardware is not supported (such as when Vista was released), but when Apple cuts support for 3 year old printers in Leopard, it is the user's fault for not owning the latest hardware.
I hate the arguments that problems with 3rd party hardware drivers it is the fault of Microsoft, but when Apple has problems with 3rd party hardware drivers, it is the hardware manufacturer's fault.
I hate the arguments that Apple never has any problems, but when a problem appears (such as not being able to activate a phone for hours), the user is at fault for not knowing the proper way of using a Mac, just plain stupid, or hate.
I hate the arguments when Microsoft services go down for an hour or two (such as Zune last week), it is said Microsoft provides horrible service and it is a Engadget front page mockery of Microsoft. But when iTunes goes down (http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/07/itunes-store-and-app-store-problems/) nothing is said, and it really is not a problem.
I hate the argument that before the iPhone, the number of applications available for a platform does not make a difference, it is the quality of the software. After the iPhone is released, all that matters is the number of applications available.
I hate the argument that somehow Apple hardware will last forever, but other computers last only a year or two (this argument is used in this very article). I am typing on a 5 year old Dell laptop, how long does an iPod last?
I hate the argument that somehow Microsoft limits user choice, when many people use non-Microsoft products. But when Apple limits choice (such as installing alternative browsers on an iPhone), it is in the user's best interest.
I hate the arguments that Microsoft keeps control over their products, but you need to jump through hoops just to develop for the iPhone.
I hate the arguments that Microsoft releases poor products that do not work and you need to wait for SP2 for it to be useful, is MobileMe working yet?
I hate the arguments that Microsoft does not deliver what was promised, Apple is just now delivering push notification - a year after it was promised.
I hate how some say everything was invented, created, designed, or innovated by Apple first, and everybody creates cheap knock-offs of Apple, when there is proof of it being done years before by other companies.
I hate the arguments that products such as Tablets, Netbooks, etc. are useless crap, but rumored products such as the Apple Tablet, or Netbook will be the savior of man.
I hate the argument that somehow opening a store, something that has existed for 1000s of years since somebody found they could trade a basket of vegetables for a chicken, is an Apple creation, and from now on no other company is permitted to open stores.
And, among the many others (but the last I will list), I hate the argument that somehow Apple is allowed to air commercials that lie about Microsoft and Apple's own products, but when Microsoft airs commercials that are true (a Windows computer is lower priced than an Apple computer), somehow Microsoft is evil and must stop now.
Well, sort of. This is a document where Apple is arguing about changes to the DMCA and is not a statement of policy.
That doesn't make any sense. Apple wasn't arguing that the DMCA should be changed to make jailbreaking illegal; they were claiming that jailbreaking is illegal under the DMCA and under plain old copyright law.
A "statement of policy" would be meaningless here anyway. Legality isn't defined by a private company's policies, it's defined by the legislature and the courts.
If this is their sole/primary objection, I fault them in the same way I fault anyone who makes a big deal out of some minor thing.
It's a "minor thing" that in order to run certain programs on your phone, you have to do something that -- according to the phone manufacturer -- is against the law?
Of course, even if Apple's interpretation of the law is correct, the chances of any individual getting sued for this is vanishingly small. But you could say the same about P2P piracy. I wouldn't fault anyone for downloading a song from Amazon instead of The Pirate Bay because of the legal risk either, even though the risk is negligible.
That's overstating things a bit much, though.
Not really: Android and Windows Mobile phones are readily available.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Didn't the FCC rule a long time ago that the telephone company cannot place restrictions on what a customer hooks up to the phone service?
Don't tell me it's not a telephone. It is sold as a telephone and it comes with telephone service. That makes it a telephone.
Your numbers are wrong, because if you were truly like me - budget conscious - you would not have upgraded your XP at all. I want to thank you for sharing, because I think this very accurately demonstrates my point, better than of my previous messages did:
Paid upgrades (list prices)
Mac
2001 Mac OS X 10.1 $129
2002 Mac OS X 10.2 $129
2003 Mac OS X 10.3 $129
2004 Mac OS X 10.4 $129
2007 Mac OS X 10.5 $129
Total: $643
-----
Windows
2001 Windows XP Home $149.99 (still using this same OS)
TOTAL: $150
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall