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.
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?
True. All we have are Google's and Apple's statements to the FCC. However, when Apple says they are "investigating an app" in the App Store, we have all seen that this effectively means that they have rejected it, but due to popularity, notoriety, or for various other reasons, they are not willing to come out and say "The app is rejected." The app will sit "in investigation" forever, effectively rejected without getting Apple's hands dirty.
OTOH, I suspect that Google may have an actual rejection letter. If they do, they should just post it as the egg on Apple's face would be priceless. :)
My blog
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
This looks closer to GV than google voice. Apple rejected GV also (after accepting it), but this is about a dispute between Google and Apple, and GV is a third party app.
The G1 also has both an un-official (in the app store, but non-google) and an official (by google) voice app. Both have annoyances and plusses, so I use them both (GV for SMS, and Google Voice for dialing and message checking).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Google has not likely received any letter. The reason? Likely to maintain Apple's wriggle room in this situation. But according to Google's statements to the FCC, they were told explicitly and directly that their apps were rejected. It is therefore Google's official testimony from top executives that Apple has rejected the Google apps, not merely pulled them pending investigation.
Remember HyperCard? Steve Jobs said regarding rumors that HyperCard was being cancelled were "bulls--t". However, how many updates to HyperCard have come out of Apple? Honesty is not Apple's policy.
Because Sprint is a lame third place among cell carriers and they desperately need a "cool" phone that does something the iPhone doesn't?
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.
....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
....I'm sorry, but we don't want your voice app in our store,...
How is this different from Wal-Mart saying: "we don't want to carry your (you name it) in our store and we don't have to give you reason why." The App store is Apple's, and they shouldn't have to give a reason as to why they accept or reject a particular item any more than we would tell Wal-Mart they must do so, or any other store.
All theory is gray
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.
You're merely reinforcing the GP's point.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
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.
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.
Wag the dog. Apple lock in precedes Microsoft by a long shot. It was born that way. It's precisely why Microsoft enjoys its 95% market share. It's Microsoft that's playing catch up.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Fairly simple - in the real world you can go to another store and buy the "you name it" that Wal-Mart refuses to sell. There are no other (definitely legal) app stores you can turn to on the iPhone. There are of course alternative phones, but it's typically neither simple nor inexpensive to make such a switch - and if one does switch, there's usually no guarantee that the next carrier/OS creator won't limit you in similar ways.
--- Bwah?
The reason it's being investigating is because Apple's iPhone is exclusive to AT&T, and they're investigating the matters of handset exclusivity and long contracts and a number of other industry practices that may not be in the best interest of the consumer, and can prevent competition.
Now normally that would be OK. We're not talking about monopolies, but the reason it's not here is because AT&T and all the other mobile vendors are using our spectrum. The Federal government has licensed the spectrum to them to benefit us, and when they are doing things with their business to prevent us from using that spectrum in the way, or with the device we want on the network we want, then it is a problem.
When it is demonstrably easy to switch a jailbroken iPhone from AT&T to T-Mobile, then the FCC has proof that the exclusivity is solely about maintaining market dominance. When the handset manufacturer, now tied to the dominant market player, is arbitrarily rejecting apps, particularly apps from companies that they are in some form of competition with, then the FCC has connected all the dots from Google, to Apple, to AT&T, and is wondering wtf is going on with the spectrum they licensed for the good of the people.
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.
...the exclusivity is solely about maintaining market dominance....
When Apple first went to the major phone providers, they all turned up their noses and wanted all sorts of restrictions, except for a relatively small provider whose name I forget at the moment. That provider was, while they were still in negotiation with Apple, bought up by AT&T which then continued with a successful exclusive contract with Apple for two years. Verizon especially, rejected Apple's idea because traditionally they and other cell phone providers had ironclad control over what went on to their phones and what phones they would accept. With the Apple and their iPhone, it was the first time that a cell phone manufacturer had to say so in the marketing of their device. We can all thank Apple that they single-handedly busted ironclad control away from the network providers, when they took over marketing and design of their own product. The other cell phone manufacturers have been and still largely are not involved in the marketing of their own products. Before Apple came along with the iPhone, cell phones were closely tied and sold by the network providers. Why is it not that then already the FCC got involved? I think this whole thing is a case of sour grapes of Apple's competitors who want to throw a monkey wrench into Apple's business practices.
All theory is gray
...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
Steve Jobs is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever seen. How often has he said, "People don't want a device like that. We'll never make a device like that." Whenever Jobs says that you can be sure that Apple has a prototype, and there's a 50/50 chance Apple will release it within the next five years.