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.
The big problem is that confidential response section. At casual inspection, you might want to think that each question is pretty independent and Google is trying to be above board, but have some company confidential stuff inside that one question. But, this is corporate law and the most logical thing is to assume that the whole response might well be designed to deceive with the operative part being in the part that was redacted. I would almost never trust a redacted document as anything meant to do anything other than to deceive. If you are not providing the full information, you are not telling the truth. To withhold is to lie.
This is my sig.
>>>Google's product is free and isn't tied to any particular hardware platform ..... Apple doesn't want to offer that kind of product because they want to [monopolize the market and take away user choice].
>>>
There. More accurate.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>>>Apple charges me around $100 each year to upgrade
>>update. You can see I'm not being flippant by making a side-by-side of what each path offers. Also, your OS X updates were free.
I apologize, but I don't understand what you mean by comparing the words "upgrade" versus "update", and since English spans the entire world, it's doubtful these words mean the same thing across international borders. Where I live (USA) these two words are interchangeable. I could have just as easily said I "updated" from 10.3 to 104. to 10.5 and so on.
ANYWAY..... let me put it this way so you can better understand my point - I bought my current Wintel OS (XP) in 2002. I'm still using it after all these years. 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.
I always look at the bottom line.
"Free" looks pretty damn good.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
No, comadore64_love has spouted this same lie in every apple related post, and it has been pointed out time and time again it is not true and a lie.
Windows 95 -> 98 -> NT -> 2000 -> XP are all separate products one pays for. They are all Windows.
OS X 2 3 4 and 5 are all seperate products one pays for. They are all OS X (10)
Not to mention apple only charged for every Other version, something I wish MS would have concidered doing like with 95 -> 98 or 2k -> XP. Alas, MS choose to charge for those too, making them more extensive.
Just because comodore64_love last purchased windows 95 and now is running a pirated XP and pirated versions between, that does not mean they are free upgrades.
And if he is willing to pirate windows up to XP to claim they are free, why not just pirate macos the same way and say they are free too?
It is nothing but a troll, and those that keep modding proven lies as insightful are clearly gaming the system
3. Both parties claim to of had ...
and we know apple should of immediately ...
really?
seriously?
*sigh*
your bias is showing. ...I just wanted a powerful smartphone that would do what I (yes, I, the customer) want it to do, without having my options limited by a company I don't particularly trust.
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. There's nothing wrong with buying something based on emotion but it is wrong to claim cold hard technical fact when it is not so.
In the end, I suspect that iPhone users will get access to Google Voice
Yes thanks, already have a native client and a web app for those who can't bother with the few clicks it takes to jailbreak. Since GV is not VOIP, a native app is not really a requirement.
I agree that eventually the iPhone will have a native client. So given that, it makes the current brou-ha-ha seem rather silly and pointless and basically a way for the Apple Haters to get another dig at Apple.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You can go overnight from 'I have to have a Mac so I can manage my iTunes' to 'I can't have a Mac because it won't run Google Voice. That is, an exclusive feature becomes a feature exclusion, and you move from being cool and integrated to being feature deficient. Overnight.
In the end, I suspect that iPhone users will get access to Google Voice: Apple's just taking a little too much heat on this one, and GV is just too cool. Sorry, fanboys, Apple does not have a monopoly on being way-cool.
Two important points.
1. iPhone has access to Google Voice via web apps.
2. The reason behind not approving Google Voice app is Apple wants to have a distinctive iPhone experience, and the Google Voice app significantly alters that core experience.
Now, you want something different. That's sort of the point of having different phones out there. If you want the iPhone experience, you buy an iPhone. If you want the Google experience, you buy an Android phone, and so on.
Calling people "biased" and "fanboys" for not preferring your experience is, well, that's bias and makes you something of a fanboy yourself.
I would agree with that statement, but my G4 Mac came with a single-button mouse which really slows me down. I get frustrated with the lack of right button xontext menus, and yes I could upgrade to a 2-button mouse, but that's yet another $expense$ incurred by Apple. :-)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Seriously? Cause truly I am not in the Windows or Mac fanboy club. My first love is Linux. I am telling you though I have wasted very little time on my windows machine at home worrying about viruses. I go a year with no virus protection behind a decent router firewall and check for malware / viruses once a month. I just dont get them. Maybe I need to get more porn so I can freak out and spend billions of dollars on Mac?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Except that Microsoft did release several free service packs, so the OS wasn't really nearly as stale as the release dates might imply.
Yes, that's right, Microsoft released 3 XP service packs, in the same time as apple released 3 major OS updates, and 28 service packs.
This is a point I get so tired of.
What if you're not looking for an experience, but instead, a functional system that can run whatever app you put on it (or develop for it), without question?
Yes, what if? Wow, if only I had written something like:
Now, you want something different. That's sort of the point of having different phones out there. If you want the iPhone experience, you buy an iPhone. If you want the Google experience, you buy an Android phone, and so on.
Oh wait, I did.
One that I don't understand why more iPhone users aren't flapping their gap more, about. I love the iPhone OS. It's pretty. But any proprietary/controlled/gimped device is basically worthless to me (and plenty of others, as Android has shown).
People aren't "flapping their gap"(?!) more because they like the iPhone and don't care about open source apps and find the App Store works rather well for them.
Your choice of Android is rather apt. Android accounts for less than 3% of smart phones, while iPhone accounts for 14%. There are certainly some people who don't like how Apple manages their phone, and prefer the openness of Android, but they are a small fraction compared to those who are quite happy with their iPhone. And further, there are almost certainly more Android users who would switch to the iPhone, but for that they are stuck on T-Mobile than there are that would switch to Android from iPhone, but that they are stuck on AT&T.
Another metric, the iPhone 3GS has a 99% customer satisfaction rate, so clearly people just don't really care.
>>>Is your time is worth that little to you?
Mighty Mouse costs $70 at apple.com which is almost a full day's worth of work (typical American). For many people that's more than they could afford to give-up.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall