Minifig Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 -~=>Thread Cleaned<=~- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 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. Wow, how's that apple koolaid tasting? And standards and guidelines, lol, if that where true why would thousands of crappy fart and hot babes apps get approved? The guideline is simple to me: Dare to compete with us or any of the networks we have love ins with, and we will pull your app. And yes, the FCC has every right to intervene. The word you are looking for is collusion, and they are doing it to cut other competitors out of the market. Whatever way you try and dress it up, that's illegal pal. And yeah, its kind of hard to compete when someone blocks you from developing your platform don't you think? If Microsoft decided to limit Windows so that you can install the Zune software but not iTunes, or did a deal with Real to block iTunes and only allow RealPlayer to be installed on Windows, people would be up in arms, yet it is essentially the same thing that Apple and AT&T are doing, and you are just too blinded by apple love to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 And yes, the FCC has every right to intervene. The word you are looking for is collusion, and they are doing it to cut other competitors out of the market. Whatever way you try and dress it up, that's illegal pal.And yeah, its kind of hard to compete when someone blocks you from developing your platform don't you think? If Microsoft decided to limit Windows so that you can install the Zune software but not iTunes, or did a deal with Real to block iTunes and only allow RealPlayer to be installed on Windows, people would be up in arms, yet it is essentially the same thing that Apple and AT&T are doing, and you are just too blinded by apple love to see it. Okay, show us the proof. Can't, can you? You're being blinded by your own prejudice. Why don't you wait for some cold, hard facts before throwing around baseless accusations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 No, I am not, being blinded by anything. If what Google said was false, knowing how Apple love to get heavy handed with their legal team, they'd already be suing Google for slander Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyn Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 (edited) From the Wikipedia article about the FCC: Competition:"Competition in the provision of communication services, both domestically and overseas, supports the Nation's economy. The competitive framework for communications services should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable, meaningful choice in affordable services." Apply that to the current situation and you'll see this is about AT&T vs. Google (they are the communications services competitors) in which Apple plays a role (Apple could be influenced by the AT&T to reject the app so AT&T can benefit from that). No, I am not, being blinded by anything. If what Google said was false, knowing how Apple love to get heavy handed with their legal team, they'd already be suing Google for slander It is not slander since the principle is correct, it's the details that differ. Apple says it has not rejected it and they are in talks with Google. Google says Apple did reject the app but they are in talks with Apple. This is about currently rejecting the app vs. permanently rejecting the app which is a big difference. Unfortunately Google makes it look like Apple permanently rejected the app whilst Apple is making it look like the never rejected it but since both parties are talking to each other on this matter it looks as if they are working on a solution and thus making it a temporary rejection for now (it might turn into a permanent one). And that's what makes it confusing for a lot of people, like you. Edited September 21, 2009 by dyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subject Delta Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Wrong again. Whether it is permanent or not, the current app as it is has been slung out by apple, meaning that they are acting anti competitively, as Google aren't being allowed to offer all the features they want. This thread is, to me just a prime example of 'whatever Apple do, they are awesome, and never in the wrong, let's worship them' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted September 22, 2009 Member Share Posted September 22, 2009 Go ahead and admit it, Frank. You hate Apple. It shines through nearly every one of your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyn Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Wrong again. Whether it is permanent or not, the current app as it is has been slung out by apple, meaning that they are acting anti competitively, as Google aren't being allowed to offer all the features they want.This thread is, to me just a prime example of 'whatever Apple do, they are awesome, and never in the wrong, let's worship them' Yes wrong again since Apple does not offer any kind of telecom service. They actually NEED AT&T and others for that part. Google on the otherhand doesn't since they ARE the telecom service provider. So it's about AT&T vs. Google. The part Apple plays in this story is the fact that it's their device and app store. The FCC is investigating IF there are any anticompetitive practices at all and they are turning there head towards AT&T. It's about finding out if AT&T influenced Apple in such a way that Apple rejected the app. That would be anticompetitive but not by Apple (they don't compete with Google on that level, AT&T does). If you take a look at "crashgate" in Formula 1, this situation would be very similar to that. Briatore/Symonds ordered Piquet to crash in order to force a safety car situation because that would give Alonso a big advantage (as in winning the race). Alonso was competing with others for championship and needed those points, Piquet would not gain anything with this crash. Replace Briatore/Symons with AT&T and Piquet with Apple and you get a similar situation and the reason why the FCC is investigating the Google Voice rejection. Check out the app store for a brain, they probably have an app for that and you definitely need one :x You're not much different than those people you're blaming of being pro-Apple. Both you and those people are very subjective and not objective. If you really are objective you'll see that what you're saying right now does not make any sense and is quite frankly impossible. Apple can't act anti competitively because they are no competitor in the first place! The only Apple would be guilty of is aiding AT&T in being anti competitively which is something entirely different. If you think otherwise, I'm quite curious about what communications services Apple provides and why you need AT&T, T-Mobile, Mobistar, etc. to be able to call and internet on the iPhone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Yes wrong again since Apple does not offer any kind of telecom service. They actually NEED AT&T and others for that part. Google on the otherhand doesn't since they ARE the telecom service provider. So it's about AT&T vs. Google. The part Apple plays in this story is the fact that it's their device and app store. The FCC is investigating IF there are any anticompetitive practices at all and they are turning there head towards AT&T. It's about finding out if AT&T influenced Apple in such a way that Apple rejected the app. That would be anticompetitive but not by Apple (they don't compete with Google on that level, AT&T does). If you take a look at "crashgate" in Formula 1, this situation would be very similar to that. Briatore/Symonds ordered Piquet to crash in order to force a safety car situation because that would give Alonso a big advantage (as in winning the race). Alonso was competing with others for championship and needed those points, Piquet would not gain anything with this crash. Replace Briatore/Symons with AT&T and Piquet with Apple and you get a similar situation and the reason why the FCC is investigating the Google Voice rejection.Check out the app store for a brain, they probably have an app for that and you definitely need one :x You're not much different than those people you're blaming of being pro-Apple. Both you and those people are very subjective and not objective. If you really are objective you'll see that what you're saying right now does not make any sense and is quite frankly impossible. Apple can't act anti competitively because they are no competitor in the first place! The only Apple would be guilty of is aiding AT&T in being anti competitively which is something entirely different. If you think otherwise, I'm quite curious about what communications services Apple provides and why you need AT&T, T-Mobile, Mobistar, etc. to be able to call and internet on the iPhone. (Y) Thank you for laying it out very clearly and concisely. The rest of us have, for the most part, been trying to explain the exact same thing but it's apparently just not getting through to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337ish Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 On the symantecs part of apple non rejection, if they approved the older version (for ages I think?) but "are in discussions" about the newest version why would they pull the old version? Thats the bit that smells fishy but admittidly google could have asked them to remove it due to changes in google voice but I think clarification of why the old version was pulled would help. Its one thing to reject the newer build and ask for revisions etc (aka pending approval) but why pull the old one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_c_b Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Wrong again. Whether it is permanent or not, the current app as it is has been slung out by apple, meaning that they are acting anti competitively, as Google aren't being allowed to offer all the features they want.This thread is, to me just a prime example of 'whatever Apple do, they are awesome, and never in the wrong, let's worship them' This thread is a prime example of how completely misunderstood anti-competitive behavior and the roles of government agencies in controlling it are handled. And yes, the FCC has every right to intervene. You really have no idea what the FCC does, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyn Posted September 27, 2009 Share Posted September 27, 2009 There is on update on the situation. AT&T now has filed a letter against Google to the FCC regarding net neutrality: - Google Hits Back At AT&T Over New Google Voice FCC Complaint (TechCrunch, so this is not the best source, take a look at the second link!) - AT&T vs. Google Voice: Dirty Details (PCWorld) - Response to AT&T's letter to FCC on Google Voice (Google's blog) - Some more articles about AT&T vs. Google As you can see the entire situation clearly is about AT&T vs Google in which Apple plays a minor role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts