Trong Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) It was always curious that Google's response to the FCC inquiry about Google Voice and the App Store had been redacted, but now we're starting to see why -- El Goog and the FCC have just released the full text of the letter, and it flatly contradicts Apple's take on the matter. If you'll remember, Apple claimed that while Google Voice hadn't been approved, it also hadn't been rejected, and that its status was in limbo while the folks in Cupertino "studied" the matter. Not so, says El Goog: according to its letter, Phil Schiller himself told Google that GV had been rejected on July 7 for duplication of functionality, following a similar conversation on April 10th during which Schiller rejected Google Latitude in part because it might "offer new features not present on the preloaded maps application." Yeah, that's a huge discrepancy, and it makes Apple's version seem even more divorced from reality that it already is. Things are starting to heat up -- we'll see what the FCC makes of all this.Update: And here we go -- Apple just pinged us to say the following: "We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter. Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google." Update 2: So we've been thinking about it, and here's our question -- if Apple didn't reject GV, and is still studying it, what exactly did Phil Schiller say to Google to make them think it had been rejected? The difference between "rejected" and "on hold pending further discussion" isn't a subtle one, and Google clearly thought GV had been explicitly rejected. For whatever it's worth, reports of GV's "rejection" are how this whole mess got started, so either this is all one huge misunderstanding, or someone here isn't telling the entire truth. Source UPDATE: Noteworthy quote from Gizmodo Google's pulled the confidentiality request off its response to the FCC's inquiry, and they say it was rejected. There are some other noteworthy morsels in the full doc (PDF), like that Phil Schiller himself broke the news on July 7 they were rejecting GV to Google's VP of Engineering and Research Alan Eustace, and that part of the reason Apple rejected Google Latitude is that they were actually afraid it might replace the core Maps application, since it offered new features Maps didn't have. Source ~-<Snip>-~ Edited September 21, 2009 by Andrew-DB Snipped out some stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337ish Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 (edited) As for who is lying, I suspect Apple too because Phil is named in the document which, if they were caught lying about it would be a pr disaster (imagine if jobs was caught lying on a statement to the FCC). Because it has him named he WILL have approved the statement. Apple could just sack an employee for the "mistake" and get over it. Edited September 21, 2009 by Andrew-DB Snipped out some stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I guess we'll find out one day. I think Google has misinterpreted Apple's non-acceptance as a denial, but we'll see. I think the important thing at the end of the day is that AT&T (allegedly) did not have anything to do with it, so the FCC's whole reason for launching this investigation (anti-competitive tactics brought on by carrier exclusivity contracts) is moot. Edit: And the whole Google Latitude things seems a bit ridiculous considering there are tons of map-like applications out there for the iPhone that do a lot more than the default Maps application for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicane-UK Veteran Posted September 18, 2009 Veteran Share Posted September 18, 2009 Google wouldn't be so desperate to get the truth out there on the internet if it were so clear cut - if Apple is telling them one thing, and then saying something completely different in public, then it's a no brainer that Google will want to expose them for lying! I've said this before though - it's certainly making me think that the Apple / Google relationship (with apps like YouTube, Maps, etc on iPhone) isn't looking quite so rosy for the future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 The only reason I'm a little skeptical is because of the report that occurred a few months ago from MacRumors: Here's another testament to just how ridiculous this move is: GV Mobile's developer Sean Kovacs says that the app was personally approved last April by Phil Schiller, Apple's senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing -- the man who often takes the stage during Apple keynotes when Steve Jobs isn't around. Kovacs says that Schiller called him to personally apologize for the delay in initially getting the application approved. Now, I'm sure Apple has laid out in its terms of service somewhere that you're not allowed to mimic the iPhone's functionality. But when you've got a blessing from that high up, that would seem like a pretty good indication that the application belongs in the App Store. Now either Eric Schmidt's actions in the past few months have made Phil Schiller have a really extreme change of heart regarding all Google Voice applications or some app reviewers are just idiots. Or option three: Google isn't the decent, honest operation it seems to be and they're the one lying (or just misunderstanding). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MistaT40 Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 I'm not surprised by Apple doing this, if it is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337ish Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Ars has posted their thoughts about it all now: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/20...p-rejection.ars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V-99 ODST Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 Phil would do something like this; don't let his smile fool you lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyn Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 My gut instinct says Apple is lying too. Google are, on the whole, pretty decent and honest. Google is very honest indeed, so honest that they requested the FCC to redact the portions about meetings, etc. with Apple (they even admit this on their Google Blog!). Google did not publish their letter to the FCC, but Apple did and they did not ask it to be redacted. Google is very secretive about a lot of things, this not just an exception, it's merely one of many. Because Apple put their entire letter on their site and people were requesting to access Google's response by using the "Freedom of Information Act", Google felt they had to do the same with their response (that's actually the reason they mention on Google Blog!). Apart from that the title of this topic is false anyway. As you can clearly see from both the Apple as the Google responses to the FCC inquiry there is no prove whatsoever that Phil Schiller did any approving. It only mentions that Schiller had contact with Eustace from Google and informed mr Eustace that the Google Voice application was rejected. So the only thing that Schiller did was relay a message to Eustace, that's it. Bear in mind that a title such as this can be considered something like slander which is illegal in most countries. In both responses there are similarities and differences and both mention that Google Voice was not really rejected. It was rejected at first but not finally. They both are working on this, both parties are talking to each other to get the Google Voice application approved. The difference is in the details and they are tiny. Apple considers this as "not approved and not rejected", Google seems to see this as rejected but they are talking to Apple to get it Approved. In other words: the story is quite different than meets the eye, not that spectacular as this topic makes it look like. So move along, nothing interesting happened ;) Take a look for yourself and than decide (just don't trust either of them since they both are prone to lying, it's what large companies tend to do): - Apple.com: Apple Answers the FCC’s Questions - Our complete letter to the FCC regarding Google Voice for iPhone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 My gut instince says since all your post are in the Windows and Xbox boards, of course you assume Apple is lying. My gut instinct says that your signature tells me that you have the same kind of vested interest on the other side of the argument. Of course because this is between Apple and Google someone's love of Microsoft has little relevance but keep up the trolling (Y) If I where to bet my money on who out of Apple and Google are most likely to be acting dishonestly in this case, picking wouldn't really be hard, due to Apple's love of dishonest behaviour. Seriously though, if they are trying to lie to the FCC that will just make their punishment even worse, I hope the FCC lays some smackdown on them, which could open up the possibility of lawsuits from other app developers that have had their apps rejected for similar reasons. Its time for Apple to stop acting like a spoiled brat and accept that they are in the wrong here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted September 21, 2009 Member Share Posted September 21, 2009 I am not a fan of either Google or Apple but if I had to choose sides I would choose Google. Apple is not really dishonest as much as they secretive. Google is not completely open, as most companies are not, but they are not nearly as secretive as Apple. Being secretive companies makes me wonder what they have to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_c_b Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 My gut instinct says that your signature tells me that you have the same kind of vested interest on the other side of the argument. Of course because this is between Apple and Google someone's love of Microsoft has little relevance but keep up the trolling (Y)If I where to bet my money on who out of Apple and Google are most likely to be acting dishonestly in this case, picking wouldn't really be hard, due to Apple's love of dishonest behaviour. Seriously though, if they are trying to lie to the FCC that will just make their punishment even worse, I hope the FCC lays some smackdown on them, which could open up the possibility of lawsuits from other app developers that have had their apps rejected for similar reasons. Its time for Apple to stop acting like a spoiled brat and accept that they are in the wrong here 1. I see no extensive history of dishonesty from Apple. Hyperbolic adverting does not equal malicious behavior. 2. The FCC has no right to regulate the app store (or the software on any cell phone really), nor is Apple required to provide an open platform for Google. The FCC may censure AT&T if it can be proven the specifically request Apple to kill Google Voice, but considering the app does directly violate one of the key requirements of the app store (duplicating functionality already provided) I see little room for confusion. Any direct attempt by the FCC to regulate software not included as a base part of the phone will likely be challenged in court and overturned. If Apple does get caught in a lie I'll be the first to say it sucks, they should be above that sort of behavior, but I see no proof of such behavior yet. Why is no one questioning the "honesty" of a Google corporate officer sitting in Apple board meetings while quietly developing competing products (and all that time accepting thousands of dollars of Apple gear as pay) when he should have recused himself from the board as soon as he decided to compete directly? Why the board didn't oust him promptly is likely an interesting story as well, I'd like to see that come to light. I stand by my original assertion, all you posters with "gut reactions" and "instincts" and "feelings" are just as trollish as you say I am, at least I'm not hiding behind some thin veneer of neutrality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 1. I see no extensive history of dishonesty from Apple. Hyperbolic adverting does not equal malicious behavior. If you spoke to some other people who had their apps blocked, your opinion would soon change on that 2. The FCC has no right to regulate the app store (or the software on any cell phone really), nor is Apple required to provide an open platform for Google. The FCC may censure AT&T if it can be proven the specifically request Apple to kill Google Voice, but considering the app does directly violate one of the key requirements of the app store (duplicating functionality already provided) I see little room for confusion. Any direct attempt by the FCC to regulate software not included as a base part of the phone will likely be challenged in court and overturned. Sure they have. Anticompetitive practises are illegal whether a store is virtual or real, and if the FCC suspects that Apple are acting anti competitively (which they blatantly are, FYI Android market functions just fine with apps that duplicate existing functionality) they have a duty to punish them If Apple does get caught in a lie I'll be the first to say it sucks, they should be above that sort of behavior, but I see no proof of such behavior yet. Why is no one questioning the "honesty" of a Google corporate officer sitting in Apple board meetings while quietly developing competing products (and all that time accepting thousands of dollars of Apple gear as pay) when he should have recused himself from the board as soon as he decided to compete directly? Why the board didn't oust him promptly is likely an interesting story as well, I'd like to see that come to light. I stand by my original assertion, all you posters with "gut reactions" and "instincts" and "feelings" are just as trollish as you say I am, at least I'm not hiding behind some thin veneer of neutrality. Neither am I :laugh: I am not trying to hide the fact that I despise Apple. As a member of the church of steve jobs, I guess you are bound to sit there defending them, but in reality they are in the wrong here, whether you like it or not. That isn't a gut reaction, its plainly clear they are acting anti competitively and they have only gotten away with it this long because most developers where silenced by their dirty rejection NDA's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 If you spoke to some other people who had their apps blocked, your opinion would soon change on that I have. They don't necessarily like the App Store review process, but most of them know why it's in place. They just wish it would be a little bit faster and more consistent. Sure they have. Anticompetitive practises are illegal whether a store is virtual or real, and if the FCC suspects that Apple are acting anti competitively (which they blatantly are, FYI Android market functions just fine with apps that duplicate existing functionality) they have a duty to punish them How are they acting anti-competitively if they have nothing to gain from this? If they were in cahoots with AT&T, that'd be one thing, but AT&T isn't even in the picture here. Apple has allowed Skype to pass through. This really isn't very different. Neither am I :laugh: I am not trying to hide the fact that I despise Apple. As a member of the church of steve jobs, I guess you are bound to sit there defending them, but in reality they are in the wrong here, whether you like it or not. That isn't a gut reaction, its plainly clear they are acting anti competitively and they have only gotten away with it this long because most developers where silenced by their dirty rejection NDA's Why are you so certain they are in the wrong? Because Google said so? Google is a wonderful and loving and happy company, right? So wonderful and loving and happy that they, at first, tried to redact their letter until people demanded to see it, whereas Apple published them publicly (right on their homepage!) for all to see right from the start. Apple would be pretty damn stupid to do that if they knew they were out-right lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 I am certain they are in the wrong because of stories from other app vendors that I have seen that have had apps denied for really stupid reasons, their opinion is similar to mine. And technically Google Voice is more of a direct threat because it is a phone service, Skype is VOIP which is slightly different. Tell me, if Apple are so innocent, why do they try to use dirty NDA's to try and prevent app developers from disclosing to the public why their apps get rejected? doesn't that even sound remotely dodgy to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 I am certain they are in the wrong because of stories from other app vendors that I have seen that have had apps denied for really stupid reasons, their opinion is similar to mine. And technically Google Voice is more of a direct threat because it is a phone service, Skype is VOIP which is slightly different. A Vonage app was approved (http://www.businessinsider.com/vonage-app-...r-iphone-2009-9) and that's a "phone service" like GV. Tell me, if Apple are so innocent, why do they try to use dirty NDA's to try and prevent app developers from disclosing to the public why their apps get rejected? doesn't that even sound remotely dodgy to you? They don't have NDA's anymore. At the start of the App Store, they were under the NDA because all app development was under the NDA. They since got rid of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkburn Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 They don't have NDA's anymore. At the start of the App Store, they were under the NDA because all app development was under the NDA. They since got rid of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store#Controversies Apple later changed the NDA citing that "it has created too much of a burden on developers" but they did not reverse the decision to forbid publication of rejection notices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 A Vonage app was approved (http://www.businessinsider.com/vonage-app-...r-iphone-2009-9) and that's a "phone service" like GV. That should give you an even bigger indication, that in the least their policies are being unevenly applied, it certainly smells to me anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_c_b Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 If you spoke to some other people who had their apps blocked, your opinion would soon change on thatSure they have. Anticompetitive practises are illegal whether a store is virtual or real, and if the FCC suspects that Apple are acting anti competitively (which they blatantly are, FYI Android market functions just fine with apps that duplicate existing functionality) they have a duty to punish them Neither am I :laugh: I am not trying to hide the fact that I despise Apple. As a member of the church of steve jobs, I guess you are bound to sit there defending them, but in reality they are in the wrong here, whether you like it or not. That isn't a gut reaction, its plainly clear they are acting anti competitively and they have only gotten away with it this long because most developers where silenced by their dirty rejection NDA's 1. I've read many of the stories on blocked apps, I think you are confusing an overwhelmed system with new policies as something evil. I don't believe you have 'spoken' to anyone, just read rants on the Internet and let someone else do your thinking for you. 2. The Federal Communication Commission has no right to decide what is anti-competitive in the application space, only in the cellular carrier space. Just because the word Federal precedes a name doesn't give it all encompassing power. Apple has every right to establish standards and guidelines for their own store, just as Google has every right to set no guidelines in the Android marketplace. Having different business models is not grounds for punishment, even in todays America. Unless the app store is funded with tax dollars (it isn't) or Apple has colluded to kill off Android/Palm/Microsoft's mobile app stores there is no crime here. There is no obligation on the part of Apple or AT&T to allow an app that cuts into their ability to make money. 3. There is NOTHING anti-competitive going on, there are dozens of other smartphone choices and all them support third party apps. Something can only be classified as anti-competitive when no other choices (or very limited choices) exist and a vendor moves in such a way to use market dominance to crush any rising competition (see MS and how they handled OEM contracts or Intel vs AMD for clear examples). This has nothing to do with worshipping Steve Jobs (since lobbing that out is the easiest way for you to distract readers from the real topic), but everything to do with your lack of understanding of the topic. Apple has every right to control the iPhone experience just as Palm does in their marketplace, Android or even Microsoft with Xbox Live. You can't force a vendor who developed a product to open their resources to everyone just because they are successful. Any app vendor can move to another smartphone platform, pull their apps for the App Store, etc... Everyone in this situation has recourse, from consumers to app devs to other smartphone makers. Yes, the App Store needs work and a better framework for application of their policies. No, it is not grounds for any government agency to punish them. The marketplace can decide this without big brother stepping in. If people really want Google Voice they can buy Android phones, simple as that. What we really have here is a case of companies whining because they can't compete, the vast majority of complaining about the Google Voice situation actually comes from people who don't own iPhones and profess to hate the company. And amazingly all of those same people are experts in anti-trust and anti-compettive behavior :laugh: How come you never here RIM/Blackberry crying about Apple? Oh yea, they are competing instead of crying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337ish Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 (edited) The biggest difference I think is the fact its google, and ITS FREE!!! others charge for sms/calls to lines! Lets face it even if AT&T didnt say "dont publish" you can 100% believe they still didnt like it. Apple is not stupid and it will know that the simplicity of their store will work against them, can you imagine google voice not being invite only, the app would be the top free app indefinately! and that would make the whole iphone a lot less attractive to network operators. The fact apple allows others who ban use on gprs etc and others that charge for text etc shows the fact they dont mind the stuff the actual app does (routing calls/sms) more just the price and chances of it affecting their iphone->network marketing. God if that was in the uk I would use it straightaway and there goes calls/sms money from me to o2. SMS makes them so much money in a ?/$ to data ratio its brilliant for them over people using data/ip. I also suspect that if google were to make it wifi online it may get it passed this "under review" balls but it would also limit to app hugely. This is what I think apple means by under review, agree to our terms like slingbox etc or dont get it on. The NDA stopping people complaining is balls too and should be stopped now. Its terrible those that are rejected are left with no outlet to complain about the process then to apple. Also the terms about not releasing your rejected app on cydia etc is purely designed to force users only down apples route, I cant see how anyone can say that its a fair term if its still in there... "We wont publish you and if you give it to anyone else your banned!" - competition control at its best! Edited September 21, 2009 by ZeroHour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_c_b Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 The NDA stopping people complaining is balls too and should be stopped now. Its terrible those that are rejected are left with no outlet to complain about the process then to apple.Also the terms about not releasing your rejected app on cydia etc is purely designed to force users only down apples route, I cant see how anyone can say that its a fair term if its still in there... "We wont publish you and if you give it to anyone else your banned!" - competition control at its best! The NDA is fuzzy, but it hasn't stopped several prominent Apple developer houses from posting their issues and drawing lots of attention. So I'd call the Internet a pretty big outlet. But I agree that whole part of the system needs looked in to. And why would you expect Apple to support a developer that releases his app to the jailbreak community? Do you expect MS to support devs who release code to get around product activation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store#Controversies That's all well and fine, but the cited article was written back on Oct 1st, 2008. I've seen rejection letters more recently without the NDA notice applied to them. It's no doubt that the Google Voice app would be restricted to Wi-Fi. That, right there, doesn't make it a replacement for your standard phone service. A supplement, yes, but not a full replacement. Or maybe Google didn't restrict to Wi-Fi and that's what the problem is all about. It's hard to tell considering none of the outlets (not even Google) have given us much information other than "we said this" and "no, they said this." No circumstances. Nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337ish Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 The NDA is fuzzy, but it hasn't stopped several prominent Apple developer houses from posting their issues and drawing lots of attention. So I'd call the Internet a pretty big outlet. But I agree that whole part of the system needs looked in to. And why would you expect Apple to support a developer that releases his app to the jailbreak community? Do you expect MS to support devs who release code to get around product activation? I would say they dont have to support them at all obviously if its on cydia, but they shouldnt ban you from putting other apps on the appstore in the future. People may release it on cydia if it has no chance of making it onto the app store to help the users out there but then they cant ever sell on the app store again! thats an extreme way to avoid *support* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 That's all well and fine, but the cited article was written back on Oct 1st, 2008. I've seen rejection letters more recently without the NDA notice applied to them.It's no doubt that the Google Voice app would be restricted to Wi-Fi. That, right there, doesn't make it a replacement for your standard phone service. A supplement, yes, but not a full replacement. Or maybe Google didn't restrict to Wi-Fi and that's what the problem is all about. It's hard to tell considering none of the outlets (not even Google) have given us much information other than "we said this" and "no, they said this." No circumstances. Nothing. I don't think you understand how Google Voice works. ;) It's not a VoIP service and hence WiFi has nothing to do with it working or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 I don't think you understand how Google Voice works. ;) It's not a VoIP service and hence WiFi has nothing to do with it working or not. Yea, I just watched the videos on it (I don't have an account of my own). It's not even close to a replacement for cell service, since you kind of have to use your minutes to make the call in the first place. This really doesn't make the iPhone "less attractive" or anything. It's just a call routing service with some nice features. The only thing you might be able to get away with is paying less for long distance (to Canada, if you're in the US). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts