Slashdot Mirror
Google, Apple Joust Over Rejected Voice App
ZipK writes with an update to last month's FCC inquiry that landed Apple and AT&T in hot water over the apparent rejection of a Google Voice app for the iPhone. All three companies submitted statements to the FCC — Apple claimed the app hadn't been rejected at all, that they were simply "studying" it further. The public version of Google's statement contained a redacted section, which they politely referred to as "sensitive," but after seeing Apple's comments, they decided to reveal the entire document. Google's FCC filing directly contradicts what Apple said: "Apple's representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality." (PDF, page 4.) Apple quickly released a statement reiterating that they did not reject the app.
Apple accepted the app, and then rejected it later, and asked that Google reimburse everyone who bought the app before that. I don't see how Apple could think that anyone would believe they accepted it, and then "studied" it, and refused any further purchases or updates, but didn't reject it.
Why doesn't Google immediately release Google Voice to Cydia/Icy? (Yes, I know that Google will release a web-only version of Google voice, but a built in version has the advantage that all of the GUI pages are permanently cached.) I would download and install it in an instant!
Apple has already shown bad faith towards Google in iTunes App Store, why should Google care if it hurts Apple's feeling but supporting App Store alternatives? Google already supports Mobile Terminal Google code project for jail broken iPhones/iTouches, so the precedent is there.
Just remove the dialer and you're set, Google! You're the paragon of innovation, you'll find a way to, you know, call people without actually dialling them!
Skype did this 1st, but thats eBay.
So apple wants control over their voice input output devices in prospective to 3/4G. Who owns the proxy to WiFI/Max?
Apple: I'm sorry, but we don't want your voice app in our store, it threatens business.
Google: Oh yeah? We'll see how well you do without our maps.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
Really simple. No matter how "cool" (read how well marketed as cool) a device that won't run whatever software YOU choose for such artificial reasons as the manufacturer choosing to retain control isn't yours at all. Stop believing the marketing hype. Stop buying into this in droves or the future is nothing but a string of crippled devices. Mark my words. Next step will be devices that expire and refuse to work after a given date.
It's not cool just because it CAN run something if it WON'T run it no matter what some fuckwit in a turtle neck tells you. Think different means think like a fucking gullible sheep.
And this is coming from someone who loathes Google just as much as Apple. The Internet web 2 cloud computing buzzword age is ridden with little substance and lots of marketing doublespeak and the sickening thing is people are buying into it. Our world COULD be amazing in 20 years but I bet it's more restricted and more frustrating than ever.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
This is a real case of "he says she says...". We need more clear-cut evidence. Who is telling the truth?
The opposite of accept is reject.
Google already supports Mobile Terminal Google code project for jail broken iPhones/iTouches, so the precedent is there.
Just because an app is hosted on Google Code doesn't mean that Google officially supports or endorses it. Google Code is similar to Sourceforge: they accept virtually any and all projects that are licensed under an OSI-approved license.
My blog
Meanwhile, the Palm Pre has had Google Voice, first unofficially (as homebrew) and now as official (through the app catalog); and both free:
http://www.precentral.net/app-catalog-gets-google-voice-app-and-much-more
http://www.precentral.net/homebrew-apps/gdial-pro-google-voice-app
So... why is Sprint OK with Google Voice when AT&T is not?
Why doesn't Google immediately release Google Voice to Cydia/Icy? (Yes, I know that Google will release a web-only version of Google voice, but a built in version has the advantage that all of the GUI pages are permanently cached.) I would download and install it in an instant!.
The short answer is because they're big and can afford to make a point. The long answer is that they likely see that the closed app store model is not good for them and other third-parties that are in competition with app store owners. Given that apple is currently the biggest and best app store if you make a point with them and set a legal/regulatory precedent with them they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open which is better for Google. My guess is that they believe this long-term advantage far outweighs the value of simply getting their app on the iPhone.
;)
Or they could just be sticking it to Apple
According to this link,
http://www.businessinsider.com/did-apple-lie-about-rejecting-google-voice-iphone-app-2009-9
"In a series of in-person meetings, phone calls and emails between July 5 and July 28, 2009, Apple and Google representative discussed the approval status of the Google Voice application that was submitted on June 2, 2009. The primary points of contact between the two companies were Alan Eustace, Google Senior Vice President of Engineering and Research and Phil Schiller, Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing. On July 7, Mr. Eustace and Mr. Schiller spoke over the phone. It was during this call that Mr. Schiller informed Mr. Eustace that Apple was rejecting the Google Voice application for the reasons described above."
It is interesting that a VP of R&D is talking to a VP of Mumbo Jumbo. Does it tell their respective corporate culture?
I really don't care how Apple shoots itself in the foot regarding their AppStore. The way I see it, they pioneered the market but someone else (maybe Microsoft or Google) will rule the smartphone/PMP and downloadable application market soon enough. I give Apple a lot of credit for their vision and creativeness but they must think people are really stupid if they think anyone will believe that they _didn't_ reject the app. I applaud Apple's misguided efforts for quality control and attempt to maintain their revenue stream, I completely understand the reasons for them. However they should rethink a lot of the restrictions they have. Maybe it won't be soon but there will be an avalanche of new options available that will sideline Apple's offerings in the future.
Disable Google Map from the iPhone and see what happens...
*sniff*
Oh, it's so cute. First they were just Baby Apple, playing nice with the other kiddies and corporations. Then they took their first steps - their first lock-in schemes, their first anticompetitive business practices. It was sooo adorable!
Now they just did the darndest thing - they're finally lying to government investigators. Awww. They're growing up to be just like their big brother Microsoft!
What is the difference between studying an application for several years and rejecting it outright? Years can be a lifetime for a software product. At what point does continually studying cross over into outright rejection? I'm sure Google's lawyers will be asking that same question.
Instead of sitting around on Slashdot crying like a bunch of babies who can't open a bottle of milk, put your comments in the official record. Tell the FCC what you think. Maybe it won't have any impact, but at least your message will be out there for someone to potentially see. And who knows, if the public actually cares about this maybe the FCC will actually listen.
There isn't an official docket for this at the FCC yet. It's contained in a rule making proceeding, RM-11361. You can file comments into the official record here:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi
As usual, try to be civil. But let the FCC know what you think. Complaining on Slashdot won't do you any good.
The iPhone platform monoculture is ripe for viruses and worms and Apple knows it. This is just another symptom of that (justified) paranoia. It is just a matter of time until the world is full of zombie iPhone botnets (complete with GPS location data images and sound.) iPhone botnets will be more powerful than any windows botnet in history.
Because they don't provide a commercial environment for software developers to flourish in, no one is going to learn to develop for their platforms anymore and then after that no one is going to buy them. This will happen about the same times Jobs dies due to remission of pancreatic cancer. It'll all happen within the next 10 years or so. Why? Because Krishna is offended by Apple's faggotry.
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods
Seriously, one of the most appreciable applications (I don't even check my voicemail on my Cure 8900) is already a duplicated functionality on Google voice (Visual Voicemail, although I understand there's much more..) . Target the Blackberry business crowd. I've been patiently for my invite to try it, and I hear the new BB 3G gets visual voicemail anyway, the rest of the late adopters will have it.
Not to mention the awesome features which Apple/Rip/Nokia have yet to attempt yet.
It's like when someone slaps you in the face later admitting the reason you have a black eye is because you failed to follow instructions rather than it being the person's fault who hit you. I don't care what why or how, but apple get the choice on whether or not they will let applications run on their iphone Google can complain all they want just like the hundreds of people who get rejected too in the end they've got their own phone to deal with.
This is a Mac, what you have there is an embarrassment to your fellow computer users.
These guys have some nerve, they have "borrowed" more hardware and software from other people than any other major computer manufacture, and all done with a wink and a nod to their fans (oh ya Intel sucks, huh Apple).
Would it not follow that FreeBSD should tell Apple that their OSx has "duplicated functionality" to gnome/KDE and ask them to remove it from the BSD OS they so graciously borrowed? Or perhaps the PC industry can politely ask Apple to quit putting their off white boxes around their damn hardware and slapping Apple stickers on them, because they are just "duplicated functionality" of a PC.
The argument: "because there are other applications that compete with our application you can't install them" is preposterous. Can you imagine if MS said you can only install IE now? Only Apple can get away with this because they have droves of lunatic fanatics (in the media and elsewhere) that would gladly throw their bodies on top of any critical message of Apple to try and drown out the sound of the growing number of critics of the absurd policies that Apple makes. What happened to equal protection under the law in this country? If MS did anything near this they would already be coughing up blood from the PR beating they would take, Apple doesn't even have a scratch. They contradict publicly filed FCC documents, and expect everyone to believe their insane argument of "duplicated functionality". Well guess what Apple, you have duplicated the functionality of a jackass and the jackass asks that you cease and desist immediately.
When an app offers free voice phone calling over a network infrastructure that makes its money by charging for the same thing, it's pretty clear to me who killed it. Apple only cares about killing something when it directly competes with its own product e.g. Mac clones.
....they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open....
Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.
All theory is gray
Yawn. Nothing to see here. Google and Apple, two second-rate evil companies, fighting tooth and claw with each other to see who get to challenge the most evil company (Microsoft).
Gates and Ballmer must be laughing themselves silly.
Steve Jobs, the man who thinks that it's alright to knock up girls and not pay child support, is STILL selling the same old crap that he sold 20 years ago on NeXT computers with a 68030 processor and 8MB of RAM.
To play devil's advocate here:
Because Apple locked down the iPhone so that you have to apply mods that break one of the many terms of service to access any store other than Apple's.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Or... you could just buy an Android phone.
If you want to play in somebody else's playground/shopping mall, Apple isn't going to stop you.
After all, I am strangely colored.
For just one example of what they're been putting developers through, see this guy's blog/diary: http://www.roomsapp.mobi/Rooms/Blog/Eintrage/2009/9/14_Crazy_App_Update_Diary.html
The fact is, I really like most things Apple builds, but it's never exactly been a secret that they're on the slow side executing a new idea or design.... Long-time Mac users practically all know about the advice to "avoid revision A products". If they promise a release date, chances are, they'll miss it. And look at the mess they made with MobileME at launch. Even iTunes needed a long time to evolve before they could offer their material for sale in many other countries.
The app store is going through similar "growing pains". Apple really underestimated the amount of work they created for themselves, trying to personally review each and every app submission to ensure it met their "standards" (despite not even having THOSE really set in stone). It's, by nature, a very subjective process - and one employee having a bad day could easily cause a rejection or long delay in a program's approval, over essentially nothing. Other times, someone could just make a simple mistake and ALLOW something really questionable, irritating everyone else who ever tried something similar and got rejected.... I think at some point, Apple is going to have to just start allowing EVERYTHING that meets certain automated code review standards, and deal with complaints AFTER the fact.
Apple's genius is the 100% consumer glitter. but they have not invented even one new technology.
It took a stack of window over a starry sky before Mac users started using incremental back ups. But, by god, Apple's glitter effects have average computer users benefiting from this ancient technology.
By & large, consumer computer features follow the course : various developer's invent, Apple make it pretty & understandable, and Microsoft deploys it to the world.
By comparison, business features generally taken directly from inventors by Microsoft, who implements them incomprehensibly. But again the business world is happy since they pay for classes on finding the right buttons for the features they actually use.
Apple's lock-in & paranoia keep their computers off the office desk, but simplifies consumers' lives. I think Apple is basically happy selling "consumer electronics" over "business machines". I doubt they could realistically compete with Microsoft's "features for PHBs approach" anyway.
You know, the iPhone will makes a lovely video game platform, just don't use it if your office uses VoIP.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
While I'm no Randian market absolutist, this is one place where there is a healthy market right now. While I think you're right that Google is trying to get Apple to open the iPhone a little more, I think their strategy extends beyond trying to get the FCC to look sternly at Apple: As the iPhone represents an important market for their product, extending Google Voice it to Android and Blackberry first is part of their strategy to pressure Apple to ease up.
Google needs Apple to increase their mobile app install base, and ultimately Apple will need Google to keep up the iPhone's functional parity with the rest of the market.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
....they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open....
Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.
So first of all my post wasn't to say that it should be legislated that Apple open their app store. Please reread my post. My point was to answer the question why Google was going after them. From Google's standpoint it makes perfect sense to try and force open app stores.
Second to respond to your post...
Actually, your analogy is flawed. Not all merchants are equal. Private companies that do not rely on regulated equity markets for capital and companies that don't rely on regulated product markets (like telecoms) are not the same as public companies selling in a regulated market. You can't protect them through regulation and then call hands off free market at other times. Well I guess you can but it makes for a pretty non-competative business arena which is of course why all big companies try it when it suits them. Because Apple and AT&T are public companies that benefit from participating in a regulatory heavy, non-competative market as well as a regulatory heavy equity trading market in which they raise capital your analogy isn't really sound. Should they wish to compete in an open free market devoid of regulation I agree that they should be left alone.
Actually I don't really care what happens to them as I will just dump my iPhone for something else if it becomes too much of an issue for me but that is the other side of the argument.
Oh and by the way we do regulate brick and mortar stores to keep them from colluding to box out third parties from a market through anti-competative deals and price fixing. It's pretty much what anti-trust is all about. It's not quite the same here but there are overlaps.
At heart, I'm actually probably much closer to a Randian absolutist than you or my post makes me sound. That said the telecom and stock markets in which the companies participate are highly regulated (not necessarily effectively regulated) and any concept of an absolutist free market is only a dream. While, I might (and do) prefer a system that was much less regulated and self-corrected and punished impropriety through bankruptcy and risk of ruin that's not the world we live in and if we're going to regulate markets we should focus on effective regulation not necessarily more of it.
That said, I was really trying to shed light on Google's strategy not necessarily advocate for or against it and I agree with your point that it extends well beyond the immediate action of FCC vs Apple.
And maybe that's exactly the point that Google is trying to get across, here. From Google's perspective, even if Apple has the right to restrict their apps, the more everybody realizes how restrictive it is, the better for Google.
Steve Jobs is dying...
Aren't we all?
Sort of... While not an app specifically, I just bookmarked my GV contacts to the Home screen. One extra click and I'm using GV, controversy avoided. Granted it may not be as purdy as an official app but it works.
the only way to settle this is with a good 'ol Louisiana cock fight!
it will be the gayest cock fight EVAR!!1!1
Google already supports Mobile Terminal Google code project for jail broken iPhones/iTouches, so the precedent is there.
The Road Transport Authority already supports speeding, so why don't they open a racetrack?? You are so fucking ignorant it hurts.
It is no the same thing, not even in the same ballpark, not even the same game. You are bringing a cricket bat to a boxing match.
There is nothing to stop Walmart from not selling A the Sony Vaio WGA3. There is no laws to stop Walmart from not selling any Sony product at all. Are you demented?
It is no the same thing, not even in the same ballpark, not even the same game. You are bringing a cricket bat to a boxing match.
There is nothing to stop Walmart from not selling A the Sony Vaio WGA3. There is no laws to stop Walmart from not selling any Sony product at all. Are you demented?
It's almost like you guys can't read or don't bother to. I actually said it's not the same thing. The parent post was about regulated markets versus unregulated markets. I was pointing out that we regulate brick and mortar stores too, nothing more. Rather than trying to be clever with your ranting analogy of an analogy try to understand the main points of the conversation and contribute next time.
As for what I was talking about, we do however stop Sony from selling TVs to Wal-mart at 10% of cost so they drive all other TV sellers out of business with an agreement to then raise the price to 10x the previous market value so that both benefit from a marketplace without competition.
We also keep competing stores from getting together and fixing prices arbitrarily high for TVs or splitting up the city into protected sales zones where one store sells in District A and one in District B. Again the point was about regulation not about forcing someone to sell something.
Bringing a cricket bat to boxing match sounds like a brilliant idea to me. That point aside it is not only against the TOS to jailbreak an iphone, everything about that smacks of being against the DMCA. The DMCA has basically removed users rights to do with their devices as they see fit. As such Apple now has a semi-illegal monopoly on their iphones. So now users cannot *legally* have alternatives. This sounds like something the anti-trust laws were created to deal with. For comparison Microsoft got the shit kicked out of it because it included *IE*, not because it didn't allow Netscape/Opera/Firefox to install, but just because it *included* a piece of software. Apple is doing something a thousand times worse here by not even allowing competitors to install software in their OS. Even Micro$oft at their most Borg like Evil-Incarnate moments were never that ballsy.
Not a single GSM carrier who is in competition with AT&T has a professional service to jailbreak an iphone and bring it into their network. If their lawyers would allow it you know there is a sales manager out there that would love to get more customers and charge X dollars to make the iphone work with their network.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
"Google needs Apple to increase their mobile app install base, and ultimately Apple will need Google to keep up the iPhone's functional parity with the rest of the market."
I think Apple needs Google more than Apple knows. Google has made great strides in just ten years, rising from virtually nothing to offering the best search engine, having a near monopoly on online advertisement, offering their own cellphone OS, their own browser, and soon their own operating system. And we still love Google.
Apple's been around for 25+ years, and how many people use their Safari browser? 3%, vs Google Chrome's 7% within just one year. Is there anything Google can not do? Does Google "need" anyone, or do they need Google?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
...the more everybody realizes how restrictive it is...
I think it is only here on /., where people are concerned with the restrictions on the on the iPhone. The ordinary John or Jane user just want an easy to use phone that has other neat capabilities. They read Apple's advertising about the fact that they have 60,000+ programs available for the iPhone, which the others can't boast about. The iPhone is not only a good phone, although its network at present has some people complaining, but a good gaming, Internet and e-mail platform as well. Oh yes, it also is an iPod and plays music well.
Most of the users of the iPhone don't have the mindset of those who post on this forum. Only a very small, in fact extremely tiny minority of all the millions of iPhone users, are bothered by the fact that certain programs are not available on the app store, because Apple won't let them in their walled garden.
All theory is gray
You are bringing a cricket bat to a boxing match.
My money is on the bloke with the cricket bat. The bloke with the gloves is gone.
There is nothing to stop Walmart from not selling A the Sony Vaio WGA3. There is no laws to stop Walmart from not selling any Sony product at all.
but there is a law against Walmart preventing me from buying the shop next door and selling extended warranty on products purchased from walmart.
Are you demented?
What gave it away?
A sig is placed here
To display how futile
English Haiku is
....they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open....
Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.
This is different as it is like Microsoft saying you can't run Open Office on your pc. Albeit their are othe phones available at the moment with similar functionality but increase apples market share and you have no difference.
Apple needs to either provide another LEGAL pathway to run software on your phone or open up their app store. Other wise the only thing stopping them abusing a monopoly is competing devices.
....to keep them from colluding...
Exactly with whom is Apple colluding here? They went to other network providers, but they all turned up their noses, because they were not going to give any cell phone manufacturer the opportunity to horn in on their closed business and sales models. Until Apple came along, cell phone manufacturers had little or nothing to say in the design or marketing of their devices. They were entirely dependent on the whims of their network providers, because that was the only way and still is mostly true of how all cell phones are sold even still today. Apple's iPhone certainty isn't the only one that is tied to particular network.
All theory is gray
Why?
Because the iPhone has a closed marketplace. You can't buy the commodity good known as the iPhone and then go to say, Walmart or Newegg or Micro Center or Amazon to buy software for it. You can't even program your own software for it without buying signing rights from Apple. They have leveraged the product to TIE the store to the popularity of that market, and they are deciding what you and I can or cannot buy.
In addition, if you look back a few days, they took tethering away; one of the most heavily touted features on their web site, and in the last few days added fine print to the web site. Now, it's fine that they no longer wish to order it, but at the time of the 3.1 release they did not have that fine print. Even unlocked phones are having tethering removed for folks who are downloading the 3.1 update, all while Apple is touting the tethering feature. On top of that, they have been pretty heavily censoring a thread about that on their messageboard (I've had a post deleted twice now, and I've seen other messages from other posters disappear - the last time I reposted I promised to find other Apple-related sites to make more people aware of the issue).
In other words, Apple have been becoming increasingly abusive toward iPhone customers and developers alike since the iPhone gained critical mass. Blocking Google Voice isn't the only thing they're doing.
On the other hand, it's like they are saying "we've made enough money, let's give other, more open smartphone makers opportunity for huge profits." It's as if they want to give Android-based phones and the Palm Pre huge advantages in the market now. It's pretty darn nice of them, actually! ;)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
....Because the iPhone has a closed marketplace...
So exactly how is this bad? Nobody forces you to buy an iPhone. Just because iPhones sell by the millions because most users don't care; they just want a phone that works and does a lot of other good things. Most users, except those on /. apparently, buy the iPhone by the millions and don't care if every /. techie bought a Pre or Andriod. The users here who are interested in a so-called open market are relatively small minority to which Apple is more than happy to cede a small marketshare.
(...they took tethering away...)
I don't think that this has as much to do with Apple as with AT&T, whose network is simply not up to the task of having computers downloading gigabytes of data through the iPhone. If the network is overloaded, it would impact normal iPhone users who don't care about tethering.
(...buy the commodity good known as the iPhone...)
Unlike Windows PCs, the iPhone or the Mac are not commodity products, but are very much proprietary integrated hardware and software devices. Users of these products have certain expectations of reliability and simplicity. Apple has every right and duty to their users, at least the vast majority of users, to preserve these aspects of their products. If they have to step on the toes of a few techies, who moan about the closed architecture, well isn't that just too bad. Apple worries about their customers, most of whom are not techies, but ordinary user Joe and Jane who want things to "just work". They don't want to futz around with their technical devices, but only use them for other purposes for which they were designed in the first place.
After all, you can't put a Honda engine into your Ford; at least not easily, though with enough effort you might be able to pull it off if you're a good mechanic.
All theory is gray
....to keep them from colluding...
Exactly with whom is Apple colluding here? They went to other network providers, but they all turned up their noses, because they were not going to give any cell phone manufacturer the opportunity to horn in on their closed business and sales models. Until Apple came along, cell phone manufacturers had little or nothing to say in the design or marketing of their devices. They were entirely dependent on the whims of their network providers, because that was the only way and still is mostly true of how all cell phones are sold even still today. Apple's iPhone certainty isn't the only one that is tied to particular network.
Everything you say is true.
Again, I was pointing out that we regulate brick and mortar stores not making a one for one analogy hence the last sentence of the post. The original post was to explain what I believed Google's strategy to be, you complained that I was advocating the regulation of Apple. My next post was to explain that I wasn't pro-regulation but that the first post was about Google's strategy. Then I pointed out what I felt was a fallacy in your argument explicitly pointing out that I was not using a one for one analogy and you jumped on that and treated it like a one for one analogy. I'd suggest you read the posts before you reply unless you're just trolling I suppose in which case...good job, you win.
Just to be clear I'm not even anti-apple...I own a ton of apple crap from a 17 inch powerbook to numerous iPods and yes even an iPhone. That said if I were Google I'd be doing the same thing.
It will be interesting to see how text messaging rates with cell phone carriers will work with Google Voice. http://www.beckthomas.com/
As fooslacker (961470) put it, we already do this in brick and mortar stores. If you've ever worked grocery, you'll find out about this: some of the grocery companies are so large they don't need to collude with anyone: Kroger, for instance, owns just about every grocery store you can name, and any you can't, throughout the world, and then some: not only do they own the marketplaces, they also own every product anyone could ever want to buy. See how dangerous this situation is?
We don't dismantle companies like this needlessly, but we do force them to sell others' products: including those of the other giant food companies of the world, as well as the products of little guys. The reason you learn this working grocery is that while stocking shelves you're trained not to stock, touch, put in order, etc. the items of competitors to the store's: fair enough, I think--their competitors send-in workers to do that for their own products.
In the event marketplaces become dominant such that nothing else is an option (either people don't know about other sources, or there are not enough that do to make others worth a product developer's (software or otherwise) time & money to "support"), the controllers can proceed to determine all pricing, whether or not certain things remain available (oh, you need that drug to live? Oh well: not profitable enough for us--by the way this is already a problem in innumerable areas), whether or not they'll let you shop (get out of our store...even thought we're the only one left: don't step foot in any other store, either--we own them), and worse. It's not far-fetched: we have all these measures for good reasons...historical, not just theoretical, reasons.
Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
(...they took tethering away...)
I don't think that this has as much to do with Apple as with AT&T, whose network is simply not up to the task of having computers downloading gigabytes of data through the iPhone. If the network is overloaded, it would impact normal iPhone users who don't care about tethering.
Go back and read the article on this a few days ago: this is the case with officially unlocked phones Apple sold that are not tied to any carrier, as well as carrier-locked phones. AT&T is not part of the equation on this situation. The fact is Apple sold the functionality, and then withdrew it. it is a bait & switch with the upgrade to 3.1. If it were such an issue, then they could have yanked tethering on a carrier-by-carrier basis, not for everyone. Apple is smart enough to code iTunes such that it knows an AT&T phone from a Mobisys phone from an officially-unlocked one. They could deliver the proper upgrades to the proper phones then everyone would be happy. It's the people who paid a premium for an unlocked phone and for those who have foreign carriers who allow tethering but can't be bothered to make the config files who are getting screwed on this. So for now at least, if you tether, locked or unlocked phone, you are best off either avoiding 3.1 or jailbreaking your phone, which is looking more and more like the more attractive option.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
red light, apple article
God's gift to chicks
Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.
Because the App Store dictates what programs a normal user is allowed to run on his phone.
It is not a brick-and-mortar store. It is a marketplace for developers to sell their applications to iPhone owners. And unless you jailbreak your phone, it is the only marketplace you are allowed to browse.
I lost my sig.
They (macintoshes and the iPhone) ARE commodity goods. They are not works for hire; they are mass produced. Now, they're not "commodities" in the sense of trading on exchanges, but they are commodity goods in the legal sense, and when it comes to the first sale doctrine, copyright, and DMCA, that is the definition which matters. Sometimes words have multiple definitions, and you have to discern from the context which definition is being used. ;)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
What is with programming disability these days? If Apple, your partner banned your Application... Do simultaneous releases on Symbian, windows mobile, blackberry, advanced J2ME and actually advertise it like "Do you have a REAL smart phone? Click here."
You couldn't understand the only thing Apple understands... Oh if your programmers can't code on anything else than XCode, you have chosen them wrong. Just look to Fring and Nimbuzz guys who have 0.000000E19% power of yours and have much more advanced client than you on _all_ platforms.
You know the real sad thing right? Apple iPhone policy made MS look like some kind of "freedom fighter hero" along with Nokia. They now have all rights to brag about it and they actually do, even their resellers. I overheard a Toshiba reseller shop guy "Oh, iPhone, that monopolistic device? It is not for you sir, you can't deal with monopoly attitude of Apple". You know what Toshiba runs? Linux? Hell no, Windows Mobile!
Apple gets investigated because that Google guy is in their board. He gets removed but, you can't change search engine of Snow Leopard's default browser (Safari) from Google to something else, its bookmarks are infested by Google, system's right click "search" on any application defaults to Google, their device comes with Google maps...
So, they pull this trick, drama to show that they aren't really running some kind of duopoly trick. What bugs me is, people fighting over both giant companies quickly approaching "MS in 1997" point and insulting each other.
If Yahoo was a real rival to achieve these things and actually had a real direction, Apple wouldn't pause a second.
They say "OK, we were never a search engine" (I agree!) and "we are now a internet utility"... It doesn't explain 20 obvious spams/scams I get in a week to a single mail account and "my yahoo" displaying "sorry! a problem occurred" on an entire tab of news sources.
I believe Yahoo and Microsoft's incompetence managed to come to a point that Google is actually hurt by it, by lack of real competition. Same thing can be said for iPhone... Nokia and J2ME camp are so stupid that Apple sees no threat, thinking they can do anything. They feel like the days they shipped first Macintosh and laughed to MS-DOS command prompt displaying IBMs. We have all seen what happened later...
I haven't watched the videos (and I wouldn't trust them if I did), but I owned an N810 and used an N770, both previous generations of that line of product. The main problem I've had with that line has been responsiveness. The touch screen doesn't register touches as often and as cleanly. User actions often lag behind a little. Scrolling in the web browser was painful at times. Clicking and dragging in the web browser sometimes didn't work for whatever reason or would click a link instead of dragging.
Nokia does some amazingly good hardware. The N95 should be way more capable than the iPhone with a great screen, fast processor, and a phenomenal (for a cell phone) camera. The UI is such a step backwards from the iPhone, however.
There's one thing Apple got really well with the iphone, and that's responsiveness. This, more than the app store, is what makes me like it so much. I REALLY want Nokia to triumph (or Android), but in the months I've had the iphone (3gs), I've never once been frustrated by how it *responded* to a simple task. The design for many things is backwards (largely due to their focus on control), but the UI is really smoothly implemented.
Nokia might get it right on the N900. I'm just skeptical. Maybe it will be a phone that lets me answer the phone regardless of what I'm doing (S60 failed on that). Maybe it will feel like it has enough processor for the apps it's running (N810 feels like it's struggling to run the browser). Nokia just hasn't proven themselves capable of making a complete package yet to me.
This written by someone who had an N95 for longer than I had any other phone in my history of having cellphones. I still am more fond of it than the iPhone, although the iPhone is more generally useful to me.
What do you mean "will release"? Google Voice was a fully-functional web-based service before any "Google Voice" mobile apps were released. Some of the functionality wasn't available on the mobile version of the Google Voice web page, but even that has changed now.
"It all depends on your definition of 'rejected'"
Riiiiight.
....Apple now has a semi-illegal monopoly on their iphones...
Apple's iPhone is only one of many phones that you can buy. If the iPhone was the only phone or nearly the only phone available, then Apple would have a true monopoly. Even then, monopolies in themselves are not illegal and unlike Microsoft, Apple did not use any illegal methods.
When you buy an iPhone, it comes complete with a walled garden constructed around it, which you also have to accept. If you don't like such a walled garden, don't buy the iPhone that comes with it. There are plenty of other devices out there, which of course come with their own version of a walled garden. Before Apple came along with the iPhone, the overwhelming majority of phones were sold by the various carriers and they were locked to that particular carrier that sold you the phone.
All theory is gray
...the only thing stopping them abusing a monopoly is competing devices....
There are plenty of those out there and more coming all the time aren't there? I'm glad there is competition to Apple, because it keeps them on their toes, not resting on their laurels or the big head start in the market.
(...or open up their app store...)
It's about as open as it can get without allowing the placement of malicious software by criminals from Russia and elsewhere. That said, I think they should allow any program on there, that does not compromise their brand or operation of the device. Ultimately the app store is their walled garden, where they can decide who gets to enter, based on whatever criteria they wish. Phones are not general purpose computers, but phones that also can do a few things that computers do. If you do not like the walled garden that comes with the iPhone, there are plenty of alternatives, each of which has their own version of a walled garden.
All theory is gray
Monopolies are not illegal in the US and never have been. So it can't be "semi-illegal".
Nice model. Except there's about -1% evidence of such markets existing.
I agree, though, the whole process of acceptance or rejection, or conditional rejection unless x, is not open and transparent.
More developers are making more money, and more people are having more choices, in the App Store than anywhere else. At the rate they're expanding, though, they're judging things too quickly.
One question that should be asked is tethering switched off for all iPhone owners around the world?
The fine print at http://www.apple.com/iphone/iphone-3gs/ says "Tethering is not currently offered in the U.S. and some other countries. See your carrier for availability." is this the one you are referring too? from that it is very clear that this issue has to do with carriers and not Apple being mean like your post is implying, it may have to do with carrier networks suffering from over use or maybe some other issue, I don't think it is right to blame Apple for this.
I think you should be blaming your carrier be it AT&T or anything carrier for disabling this feature, just like other carriers disabling features on any other phones, do you see people blaming Nokia for example for a feature that is available on network A but not on network B?
Would reason that the brick and mortar store analogy doesn't apply because the provider of the store has no direct opportunity cost by stocking this extra app. (online space being virtually unlimited)
Oh yeah, that whole AT&T thing must have been some bad pizza. My bad.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
I guess I live on the side of the street that believes that "Walled Garden" shouldn't be legal. Its no different than saying that replacing your stock muffler with an aftermarket isn't acceptable and if you want that different tip you should buy a car that comes with it, yay car analogies. In any case, its bullshit. That "Walled Garden" should not exist, its artificial with no valid reason for existing other than to keep competitors away from their devices.
To summarize my view, the iphone is a handheld computer, computers run OS's, accessing that OS or hardware at a low level should not be illegal as it currently is. I wouldn't be so hard against Apple restricting their official OS to only official programs if people could legally and commercially hack the devices. But they can't, so Apple should be forced to open the product up or someone needs to finally whack the DMCA provision that prevents places like Tmobile from providing it as a professional service to woo customers.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
.... its artificial with no valid reason....
There is a valid reasons to have a single registered source for programs for a device and that is to keep malware out. If the iPhone were open like a normal PC, you would have the same problem with it, in that criminals would be infest it worms and viruses, as they have done with Windows computers. There is no reason someone couldn't come out with a handheld open computer. You could be the first customer.
The iPhone is sold as a phone and the iTouch is sold as a music player. Both of them can function as a computer, but that is not their primary purpose. Apparently, the vast majority of the users of these devices disagree with you in that they are quite happy to have a safe gadget that is not infested with crap such as a PC often is. Security and openness are opposites. It would be so much nicer if we didn't need locks, but because there are thieves and crooks we do.
All theory is gray
Because the AppStore and ONLY the AppStore can get an app onto the iPhone without crippling restrictions and/or requireing the owner to hack the phone.
Online stores in general aren't required to carry any and all products because there is no restriction on alternative online stores opening and carrying those products or the manufacturer opening it's very own online store to sell from.
Apple is free to continue not carrying the Google apps if they allow 3rd party app stores or even just allow the owner of an iPhone to freely install whatever they want from wherever they want.
An alternative question is why should Apple be allowed to restrict who can sell apps for the iPhone? <analogy type=car class=obligatory> It's like an auto manufacturer designing a car so it's trunk will forcably eject groceries if they're not bought at Kroger AND actively blocking car owners from cutting power to the ejector mechanism.</analogy>
There's also no restriction to prevent some other store from opening right across the street and selling Vaios. When Google is free to open their very own iPhone AppStore and have the apps downloaded from there actually work on an un-hacked iPhone, your point will be valid.
...just allow the owner of an iPhone to freely install whatever they want from wherever they want....
Yes, just like a PC allows a user to install every Trojan, worm, virus and other crap software that criminals from Russia and elsewhere choose to put on the Internet. /., who would like to see an open free-for-all phone. It is not like the other phones on the market right now don't have their own walled garden.
There is nothing to stop another manufacturer to come up with a phone that allows dumb users to install anything and everything on their device. Apple chose to produce gadgets that make it very difficult for dumb users to damage them and then blame Apple when they doesn't work right anymore. It is highly unlikely that another manufacturer will see much money from the exceedingly small minority of techies, like those on
(...why should Apple be allowed to restrict who can sell apps for the iPhone...)
The obligatory car analogy would go something like this: why should Honda allow the the EASY installation of somebody else's engine and transmission in their vehicles? It can be done, but you have to be a good mechanic to do it. The iPhone can be jail broken, but you also have to have the know-how in order to do it. Just like the engine and transmission are the heart of the automobile, so also is the software the heart of the iPhone. Its hardware is not much different from the Pre.
Judging from the sales of iPhones and the iPod touch, ordinary users, voting with their wallets, have enthusiastically embraced the walled garden of the iPhone/iTunes/app store, that other manufacturers would love to have entrance to. All this talk about forcing Apple to open their closed system is nothing more than sour grapes by those who missed out, are now envious of their success.
All theory is gray
Yes, people may install bad things. They may drop it in the toilet or down stairs as well. Unlike the latter two, the first can be fixed by re-imaging.
Nobody said they couldn't put up a black striped yellow dialog and warn that if anything goes wrong you must reload the phone from a clean image first. In the end, iPhone users are not children (for the most part) and should make their own decisions.
Apple has chosen a different path, and so they also may be legitimately forced to allow practically anything that isn't malware or crashy into the App Store even if they don't like it.
Note that Honda makes no special attempt to make a 3rd party engine impossible to install they just don't take special steps to make it easy. Understandably, your warranty is canceled if you choose to actually do that.
Apple DOES take special steps to block 3rd party apps that don't come from the App Store. There are plenty of steps they could take to legitimately avoid providing support when flaky unapproved apps are likely the problem without draconian measures.
....They may drop it in the toilet or down stairs as well....
Except that when they do that, it usually does no further damage besides possibly more likely breaking the device. However, criminals these days are not out to break people's computers, but to steal the money by getting private information. They also like to send lots of spam. Therefore, Apple is justified in taking whatever measure it takes to make it as difficult as possible for the criminals. Neither Apple nor Honda make it impossible for an expert to make modifications.
(...be legitimately forced to allow practically anything that isn't malware or crashy into the App Store even if they don't like it....)
I bet, if you were to take a survey, only techie users, such as found on Slashdot, a very small percentage of all iPhone buyers, care about jail breaking or installing any and all programs available from anywhere on the Internet or elsewhere. Currently, there are over 60,000 programs available that have been checked by Apple and are guaranteed to be free of viruses, worms and other uncleanness. Apple should make it take at least as much effort to install non-approved software into the iPhone, as it would to install a Ford engine and transmission into Honda. Both are difficult but not impossible. A smart techie like you, can still jail break the iPhone, install whatever you want and a really good mechanic could put a Ford engine and transmission into a Honda. However, don't expect to take a modified Honda to a Honda dealer for repairs and don't expect Apple to fix your jail broken iPhone.
All theory is gray
However, don't expect to take a modified Honda to a Honda dealer for repairs and don't expect Apple to fix your jail broken iPhone.
If Honda was like Apple, they'd sneak around in the middle of the night slashing the tires of all modified Hondas. They'd also void the warranty on the drivetrain if the owner hung fuzzy dice on the mirror.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few non-techies who would like to install the very Google apps that TFA is discussing.
If the iPhone were open like a normal PC, you would have the same problem with it
I think you just pissed off the whole OSX segment of home pc users by saying that, plus all the *nix users in general. Several people can attest to the fact that just because you have an open platform doesn't mean you suddenly get viruses and malware, the possibility does not guarantee the result, after all its possible even now. Apple has proven to not be the brightest bulb when it comes to app reviews. Again, I'm not against Apple restricting the iPhone App Store to official apps if people could legally choose to jailbreak, but they can't. That is why I'm against it, they currently have a monopoly. If IBM had the DMCA back in the day we'd all be using apple or ibm pcs only because reverse engineering the bios would have been illegal and no commercial entity would have taken it up.
Apparently, the vast majority of the users of these devices disagree with you in that they are quite happy to have a safe gadget that is not infested with crap such as a PC often is.
Now your using the popularity of the device to validate the devices restrictive features? That's just plain bad logic there. The popularity of the devices is due to its above average to excellent quality level, that does not in any way mean the restrictions are appreciated or wanted. So no, popularity of devices != support of restrictions.
Security and openness are opposites.
Well now you just pissed off every single security expert on the planet. Windows is constantly held up as the end all be all of systems as far as getting infected. Yet many of us have absolutely no issue with malware or viruses and use the systems regularly. An open platform does not mean instant infection. It does raise the probability but it also raises the probability of the device exceeding the imagination of the developer to become something they never imagined possible. That's worth having to hard reboot your device back to stock settings in the event of an infection.
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
...the DMCA...
Should have never been past and should be repealed. That will never happen, because the Democrats who passed it are in power and in the pocket of Hollywood.
(...I think you just pissed off the whole OSX segment of home pc users by saying that...)
I think it would be great if Apple extended this system they came up with for the iPhone to OS X as well. They should of course still allow the installation of other programs, perhaps with a warning about security each time. It is also necessary for a device that runs only on a battery to have some controls in place over applications that negatively affect battery life and thus the whole user experience. Unlike computer PC manufacturers, Apple cares a lot about system integration and user experience. Apple came up with these devices and their restrictions and they can do what they like with them. It's a free market, and you don't have to buy one if you don't like the walled garden that comes with every iPhone.
(...Yet many of us have absolutely no issue with malware or viruses...)
The reason for that is that you're a techie, a Slashdot reader, not some grandma or uncle who clicks on every link that some criminal has sent their way. If Windows computers had as few worms and viruses as a Mac, most so-called security experts would be out of a job. Because Apple built good security into the system, the security companies are not making a penny off of the millions of iPhone users. I am sure that they are more than pissed about that.
(...reboot your device back to stock settings in the event of an infection....)
Some malware is incredibly hard to get rid of without wiping the hard drive completely clean of starting from scratch. Hopefully, data and settings can be backed up, without also backing up the malware. In most things, and here also, prevention is a lot better than cure. You, from a techie viewpoint, have no trouble reinstalling an operating system and then copying everything back, to restore your system. Your grandma or uncle likely do not have the skills that you do in this. It is from the non-technical users of this world, that Apple makes its money and they are in the majority by far. That has everything to do with popularity.
All theory is gray
...If Honda was like Apple,...
They would definitely void the warranty and not work on a Honda where someone had replaced the engine and transmission with some other brand but they definitely wouldn't do that for the mirror. If you are a techie, you CAN jailbreak the iPhone and install whatever you like on it. Jail breaking the iPhone is more like replacing the drive train, not hanging something on the rearview mirror.
All theory is gray
Because they have a monopoly over applications for the device. If they open up for more app stores it wouldn't be a problem.