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.

Comments

Re:The accepted and rejected it

[Ed Avis]

More to the point, it's not as if they give it the benefit of the doubt and allow people to download the app while they 'study' it further. It is assumed guilty unless proven innocent. So there is no difference between what Apple calls 'studying' and rejection, given that they can always change their mind later.

Easy fix

[supernes]

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!

Easy

[XPeter]

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.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell did I read that as "Yahoo! I just got an erection." ?

Re:Easy

[Anpheus]

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.

Re:The accepted and rejected it

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a third party app that Apple accepted and later rejected, not the official Google Voice one. The official-from-Google Google Voice app was never available on the app store.

Stop buying crippled devices

[syousef]

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.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices

[mlscdi]

Next step will be devices that expire and refuse to work after a given date

That already exists. Ever tried to replace an iPod/iPhone battery? Sure, it's possible, but Apple make this as difficult as they can for you. I always have held the belief that iPods/iPhones are defective by design.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices

[Rich0]

Yes, but that is where standards come in to play.

Utilities are essential, but it is just as important that utilities are limited to providing the sorts of things that are natural monopolies - such as providing bandwidth. Vertical integration causes all kinds of competition problems.

If your DNS provider makes money off of registrations and isn't allowed to make it off of selling ads, then they have no incentive to redirect NXDOMAINs. If your bandwidth provider doesn't also sell VOIP or on-demand video, then they have no incentive to filter/deprioritize competitor's traffic.

It isn't just technology - look at the mess with dealer-servicing of cars. OEMs withold specifications (particularly around on-board diagnostics) to make life more difficult on competing repair shops.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices

[TheRaven64]

People don't want to be able to program a device, but that doesn't mean that they don't want their device to be programmable. To follow your car analogy, most people don't care if they can't fix their car, but they do care if their favourite mechanic can't. They do care if they have to go through the authorised dealer for servicing and parts, who charges 50% more than their competitors.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices

[SanityInAnarchy]

Its a sort of quality control, protecting the user from possible bad experiences so that the company's name doesn't get tarnished.

Let's hope the company's name gets tarnished enough by the numerous apps that consumers actually want, and developers want to write, but Apple won't approve.

The majority like that the company is protecting them.

Then let them have their app store, and throw up a little warning if I try to install apps through other channels -- downloading from a website, say. Users who really trust Apple to protect them can stick to the officially approved apps, and users who want to be more adventurous shouldn't have to jailbreak their phone.

Yes, we could buy other phones, and I intend to. But isn't it a bit insulting to realize you're essentially letting Apple protect you from yourself?

Everyone else doesn't get it, they think that just because we have a free market that means that a company has to make their products open to tinker with and if they don't it's some crime.

A lot of people seem to have this assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid ("doesn't get it") or evil.

No, I accept that the free market means that as long as the iPhone doesn't become a monopoly, they can pretty much do what they want. I'm a bit appalled that the free market is failing to correct such an obvious inefficiency, though.

But the fact that something is legal doesn't make it ok. It's entirely legal for me to link to goatse right here, but it would make me an ass, so I don't do it.

Why isn't anyone bitching at Microsoft for not letting any 3rd party apps on the Zune HD? Because no one even wants the device?

Most likely. But also because the iPhone has been available, and high profile, for awhile now. Zune HD apps of any kind weren't available till this point.

I don't really mind a device that's "crippled", but designed for a specific purpose, to be an appliance -- as others point out, if there's a Linux inside my TV to draw the menus, as much as it might be cool to hack it, I really don't care. My current cell phone is some cheap Motorola crap that can run Verizon-approved apps, and nothing else -- and I don't care, because I didn't buy it for the ability to run apps, I bought it for the ability to make phone calls -- and later discovered that it could take decent pictures, and play music, which is kind of a nice bonus.

I don't even have too much of a problem with game consoles, although I'd much prefer an open device, where homebrew games can be sold without going through a third party.

Where I have a problem is when something is sold as a general-purpose computing device -- and don't kid yourself, the iPhone is not sold as "just a phone", it's sold as "there's an app for that" -- and is then crippled. On top of that, you have Apple's seemingly random approval process...

I mean, take this:

Apple is open about rejecting apps, they aren't trying to trick devs/customers into thinking they can get any app accepted.

Developers, no. But customers aren't going to be much aware of this until it starts to bite them -- until there's an app they want, but can't have, because Apple has rejected it.

Again: It's sold as "There's an app for that." Not as "There might be an app for that, if we allow it."

Re:Stop buying crippled devices

[mjwx]

On average, Apple products probably do takes longer to develop a fault than competing devices,

That's subjective. In my experience Apple laptop failures are on par with Dell laptop failure (unsuprising given the fact that they use the same internal components and similar manufacturing techniques/conditions). Apple laptops failures are actually more common then Dell laptop failures but I'll happily put to the small sample size (4 Mac's compared to 50 Dell's).

But as you said, getting a Dell or Lenovo fixed under warranty is a lot easier then getting a Mac fixed under warranty (Dear Apple, please learn the meaning of the term Next Business Day).

Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

Re:More clarity required

[morgan_greywolf]

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. :)

Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic

[fooslacker]

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 ;)

Corporate Culture

[billy8988]

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?

 

Follow the leader

[brownsteve]

*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!

Re:More clarity required

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic

[arminw]

....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.

Apple's approval process is broken, period ....

[King_TJ]

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.