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.
No, they're holding it in limbo until the FCC stops asking questions.
They don't have to reverse engineer it, they can just keep it in limbo forever if they want, it's safer that way.
And Google can never point and say "Hey, you rejected my app," because it will always be "under consideration" and possible eventual acceptance.
Apple isn't contractually required to ever give an accept/reject answer on an app submission (G)
Well, sort of. This is a document where Apple is arguing about changes to the DMCA and is not a statement of policy.
I wouldn't fault anyone for skipping the iPhone because of this
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. Which is to say, I'll say they're misguided, but it's their choice so to each his own, right?
there are plenty of other phones that are designed to run arbitrary code and whose manufacturers won't call you a criminal for doing so.
That's overstating things a bit much, though.
Context is important. The VERY next thing I said was "However, that ride is over,..." with respect to the 'free ride'. That pretty much undermines your entire argument.
Yes, context is important. But you were talking about history. What's happening in the future doesn't alter the past.
You're complaining about how Apple updated OS X too often. That you're saying that MS is starting to do the same doesn't change that. It just makes it doubly strange.
Apple doesn't charge for their bug fixes either.
So if you have OSX10.2, and want the latest bug fixes, you can download a patch for them? No. I don't think so.
Um, wtf? I said they don't charge for bug fixes. If you can't get bug fixes for an OS three (soon to be four) versions ago, how is that a counter-argument? They still aren't charging for them.
Let's see your math on that. The average Windows update costs what? $150-250? OSX is $130 2x-3x as often?
Yes, let's.
Purchasing every version of OS X at full retail, from 10.0 to 10.6, costs $674. Purchasing every version of Windows costs at least $450, and that assumes buying the Home version, either OEM or upgrade not retail. Buying retail, or buying Home Premium or Professional, you exceed the total cost of every Windows upgrade. If you purchase Ultimate retail (which is what you get with OS X), you exceed $1,000!
And *that's* using your misrepresentation of what I said. I said that OS X is cheaper than Windows. OS X is $129 full retail. Even Windows Home Basic costs more than that. You have to go all the way down to Windows Home Basic OEM before the price drops below the price of OS X.
The real complaint is that they discountinue supporting their system too quickly. The issue is once apple releases a new version support for the old one drops off VERY quickly. Lots of new Software won't run on the older version because many apple dev's (including Apple - e.g. ilife, itunes...) only support the latest release. And patches for previous version stop coming out much faster.
Windows Live Movie Maker doesn't run on XP. DirectX 10 isn't supported on XP. This is just the previous version of Windows. If you're going to complain that Apple drops support for some programs and technologies from the prior version, you've got to fault MS for the same.
Apple released a security update for Tiger as recently as this month.
They aren't complaining that the OS is improved faster. Its that they have to upgrade more often. If it were more of a choice, there'd be no complaint. But these days even running 10.4 excludes you from a lot of stuff.
Um, yeah, iLife 09 and... ?
I run across plenty of people running Tiger and even the occasional Panther, with no problems whatsoever. Although I do generally recommend they upgrade to the most recent.
But what's the primary complaint about upgrading? Cost? As I've already shown, upgrading to the most recent version of Windows is cheaper than doing the same for OS X, unless you stick with Home Basic, where it's just a bit cheaper.
iPhone apps run in a strict sandbox. They have no way to alter core experiences any more than a web app can.
Not of they replace the core functionality.
Using Google Voice completely bypasses the iPhone's built in Phone app, Contacts app and voicemail system.