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.
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!
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
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.
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
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
*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!
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.
....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