Submitted by The whole saga around the rejection of the official Google Voice client for the iPhone continues to play a prominent role on many websites. We all remember that the FCC had asked the three companies involved, AT&T, Google, and Apple, to answer a number of questions, but Google had censored a part of its letter. The censored section has now been published by Google.
In the original replies to the FCC’s questions, Apple stated that it had, in fact, not rejected Google’s own official Google Voice client, but that it was still under consideration. Google’s answer to the relevant question which asked Google to divulge the reasons given by Apple for not approving the Google Voice application was censored by Google’s request.
Several individuals filed Freedom of Information Act requests to get the answer uncensored, and Google complied with these requests, and now the letter is on the FCC’s website, uncensored. This is how the answer goes:
Apple’s representative informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representative indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality.[..]
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.
This is a direct contradiction with the words from Apple, who stated that the application was not rejected, but that it was still under consideration. Google here states that the application was rejected, end of story. When asked to comment on the now uncensored parts of Google’s letters, an Apple spokesperson said:
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.
So, the big question now is, who is the one twisting the truth, or maybe even downright lying? While I don’t really trust either of the two companies (because they’re companies), the appearances are against Apple; in their letter to the FCC, they already lied about the Google Voice application “replacing” things like the dialer, while in fact, it only duplicates it by adding another, application-specific dialer. In addition, as John Gruber pointed out, try searching the App Store for “dialer”.
Other complaints from Apple in their letter proved to be dubious too, such as the privacy concerns they raised about contacts being uploaded to Google Contacts. This functionality has been part of iTunes for a while now, so the complaints raised by Apple were rather moot.
All in all though, we have to remember that we are dealing with companies here, and by definition, companies lie. By policy, companies will lie and deceit until their pants combust, so it’s really hard to tell who is telling the truth here. What do you think?
Apple has continued to state even after this latest Google revelation that it didn’t reject the app. I guess time might tell. I doubt the FCC will do anything about it in any case.
In my own personal opinion, there’s no contradiction. Apple flat-out lied in their reply to FCC. And I am not saying that because Google said their thing to FCC and Apple said their own thing to FCC (it’s one word against the other anyway). The reason I say this is because of what happened to the OTHER google voice applications, applications written by third parties that had nothing to do with Google.
And what happened to them was that they were first approved, and then, a few weeks later (when Google submitted their own app), they were UNapproved. Which tells me, that Apple didn’t care too much about the whole google voice thing at first, and then when Google itself submitted their own OFFICIAL app for google voice, then Apple did a 180 degree change to their policy because they realized that the official app has more weight.
Because of what happened to these two OTHER apps, it tells me that Apple DID reject Google’s app, and that what they are saying right now that the app is STILL under “inspection” (after all these months) is pure hogwash. Bullshit. Bollocks.
Edited 2009-09-19 23:01 UTC
You might be right, but what possible motive does Apple have?
If Apple flat-out rejected the app, and they new that the FCC was also talking to Google…. then why lie?
You have to look at the nature of Google Voice. It basically takes over the phone – you get one Google number you can use anywhere you are, you use that instead of your appointed iPhone one on whatever network you happen to be on and you then only need data access from your iPhone. Your mobile network is bypassed and it also effectively takes software control of the phone away from Apple. If Google Voice takes off in a big way, and there is every reason to believe it would (I’d run out and use it tomorrow), as Apple see it they would be held hostage by Google. If GV took off and then wasn’t there then people wouldn’t be interested, and it makes changing phones and networks a hell of a lot easier. Strategically, Apple are just plain uncomfortable with that.
Why would Apple lie? They just want everything to go in a circle that will never complete and hope it all goes away because they don’t have an answer to it themselves.
Receiving phone calls from Google Voice number still need the real cell phone number and voice network instead of data, no?
Edited 2009-09-20 00:53 UTC
Yes, it does. It doesn’t kill the current lines, but it essentially makes the telecom companies bit carriers rather than “brands” with “products”. And bit carriers is what they should be IMO.
Edited 2009-09-20 01:42 UTC
I like “dumb pipes” better.
I like my formats open, my pipes dumb and my bits controled by me please.
Ding, Ding, Ding. Thank you! A cupie doll to kragil for the dead on bulls-eye hit!
you should be careful what you wish for.
the reason why Home broadband is relatively cheap is because companies make money by selling their voice or video service.
The reason why Wireless broadband is expensive here in the States is they were “leased” for a huge cost from the goverment.
If the companies are reduced to dumb pipes, then you will get a dumb pipe. You may also get bit based billing. And also be stuck with outdated technologies because companies would see no benefit to spending all the meney for network upgarding when they have not made their initial investment cost.
We all want cheap access, but someone will pay. Maybe everyone will become an IP service provider ona goverment run Wireless Network.
Yes, but the point is that the number becomes irrelevant because you don’t use it. The network operator becomes little more than a data carrier, and you can change operators merely based on the price of data carrying and change devices as new methods of data carrying become available – i.e. better WiFi coverage.
It’s dangerous to the mobile operators and dangerous to Apple’s lock-in.
And if it did – it still wouldn’t change the fact that it is my device, I paid for it and by hell or high water I can load any damn thing I please on it. It is not up to Apple to be the gate keeper of what can and can’t be loaded on to *MY* iPod Touch.
I had a look through the applications on the AppStore right now, most of their are absolutely crap and many duplicate what is already available either on the phone or is yet the 1000th poor written app that makes farting sounds.
It truly is pathetic when I see Apple try and defend the indefensible. Its my damn device and I’ll decide what I and to load onto it – the moment that the transaction is finished, I own it.
If you’re concerned with device restrictions then you shouldn’t have bought from Apple in the first place. There are plenty of alternatives to the iphone out there, most of the apps as you noted are crap anyways.
http://www.jfplayhouse.com/2009/09/happy-douchebag-day-out.html
Where did I state that I used an iPhone – read the bloody post before replying. I have an iPod Touch, not an iPhone and I clearly stated that in my post but hey, like most people around here – you don’t read the damn post, you scan it then reply based on key words that pop out at you.
Btw, what are the alternatives to the iPod Touch? You mean the Archos device which I bought that ended up dying in 3 days and it cost me a grand total in shipping costs back to the US NZ$40 just to get a refund (ignoring the original cost of NZ$150 to get it to NZ via a remailer); or the fact that the Microsoft Zune doesn’t sell in New Zealand and Microsoft refuses to support Mac OS X.
Yawn……you must have a lot of issues if you get upset over someone calling an ipod touch an iphone.
But anyways I think the solution is obvious: get an iphone.
Btw, what are the alternatives to the iPod Touch? You mean the Archos device which I bought that ended up dying in 3 days and it cost me a grand total in shipping costs back to the US NZ$40 just to get a refund (ignoring the original cost of NZ$150 to get it to NZ via a remailer); or the fact that the Microsoft Zune doesn’t sell in New Zealand and Microsoft refuses to support Mac OS X.
For many tasks Nokia’s N800/N810 is a good alternative. Maybe not that sleek as a music player but certainly one of the most portable Linux computers. And old models are getting cheap as the new N900 is coming to the market.
If you look for an alternative for Iphone, it’s better to wait for N900 come all the way there. Note that all of them are free in the broad sense of the word.
If you’d actually like an answer to that question, then: iRiver actually makes a lot of excellent devices, with a lot of them being fairly cheap and having broad format support. I have a iRiver Spin; I got it because it was cheap (on newegg — I think it was on sale for deep discount when I got it), and because it plays Ogg Vorbis files ass well as MP3s. It has an AM/FM radio, a touch screen, and video playback, too.
Frankly, there’s also the PSP. It’s a great podcacher, an adequate MP3 player in general, it mounts as a USB mass storage device (on any OS), has a Skype client (and built-in WiFi), and, you know, plays games, too.
I suppose that would depend on what, exactly, you’re looking for in a portable device of this nature. There’s iRiver who make a lot of good portable media player devices, though they concentrate on that area and don’t have a lot of the more internet-related features of the Touch. I suppose a tablet could take the place of the Touch for some, something like the Nokia N800 or N810. However, when you come right down to it and given the subjective nature of what would be considered an alternative, there may not be one. In my case, for example, there isn’t as the iPod Touch is the only pmp device that has voice output so that someone like me who is unable to see the screen can still use it and interact with all of its functions. In fact, really, for in-built accessibility such as this in a mainstream system there is really nowhere else for me to look than Apple, in my case they literally are the only alternative unless I want to get screwed over by paying 3x what everyone else pays so that I can get a “special” device that will only do half what even the iRiver products can do. So, for me, there is no alternative at all, Apple is the only brand to buy that makes sense.
you are delusional.
A person’s desire to control where and what software is installed on there purchased hardware is delusional? It’s madness to use purchased hardware to the limits of it’s technological abilities rather than limitations imposed the politics and business decisions?
What I find funny are those who think that control over ones hardware purchase as ‘delusional’ are quite happy to deride the idea of nanny state – happy to hate nanny state but adamant that its perfectly ok for a mega corporation telling them what they can and can’t load onto their hardware.
Side Note: If Apple is lying about this issue (as it seems to be the case), what about the accusation laid against AT&T regarding the loading of software onto the device – how much influence has the exclusive carrier had on the decision? The fact that Apple are so willing to allocate resources to close holes in their iPhone tells me there are other forces at play beyond just them. This isn’t to excuse their behaviour but having allowed time machine backups to non-time capsule hardware in one update but never reversing that decision tells me that concern over exclusivity of hardware isn’t a particular problem.
Edited 2009-09-20 20:29 UTC
I definitely think you can support a corporations freedom to decide what they want to offer to their customers and yet not support a nanny state…
i have a choice in my telephone manufacturer and my dial tone provider…
I do not have a choice in the current elected government…sure I can cast my vote, but if it differs than popular opinion, i still have no choice.
If one corporation tells me i can’t do something i want to do, someone else will offer that to me if they want my money. A gov’t doesn’t have the luxury of competition. Sure if I disagree, I could leave the country, but that is a little different than changing my cell service/insurance company/internet service/etc…
For me, being sold a fully functional piece of hardware with it’s functions castrated by an imposed synthetic scope of use is like buying a hammer that can only be used with a specific brand of nails.
“Sure, technically you can drive any old nail into a piece of wood with the Blue & Becker hammer model 3 but we’ve decided with this imposed limitation that you can only use Blue & Becker approved inch and a half type 3 nails.” – how many carpenters let alone any other nail using profession or DIY person is going to accept that?
“I see you’ve purchased our produce peeler model 2; thank you. We understand that technically, one could use the model 2 when peeling potatoes or carrots. However, we have approved the model 2 for peeling only mackintosh apples larger than two inches in diameter with a ripened red within two hues of the attached colour sample.” – This would not be accepted. It wouldn’t be a consumer revolt, it’s just be ignored because the imposed limitation is not remotely close to the rational potential of the technology.
Yet, suddenly when it’s a computery-magical little box; people loose there rational thought and all but beg to for technology to be delivered from the vendor in a crippled state.
“yes, the wifi card is capable of 10,000 kbps download speeds but we’ve limited the maximum to 10 kbps through your user agreement and an easily changes software configuration setting. Oh, and you must use it only with our wifi routers; sure, it’ll connect to any other brand but you void the warranty by not being one of our elite brand loyal consumers.” – this is essentially what they’ve done and people eat it up like the Jesus Phone will somehow cause world piece if only everyone conforms to the wishes of a central corporation.
The irony is that if they rethought some of the glaring design decisions and business policies, even I’d be very hard pressed not to own one. We’ll see how the N900 trumps it soon enough though.
The problem with the n900, in the US at least, is that it offers the consumer too much freedom. AT&T and TMO won’t subsidize the cost of the phone without pulling some of the functionality. A fully functional linux operating system available to run any software at all…it won’t sit well.
And if they don’t subsidize, the $800+ price tag will be enough to make sure this doesn’t trump any phone on the market, especially the iPhone which is now available for like $100 with 2year agreements.
Don’t you know? You’re only licensing the use of the iPod Touch to play music. No one owns anything anymore. What kind of communist ideas are those anyway?
Very strange ones, given that not having individual ownership is kinda the bedrock principle of communism.
I know that was the joke in the first place; I had to say it. I’m sorry!
Because Apple’s actions indicate intent. They don’t want to be seen to be shutting Google out of the voice app marketplace because it makes it all the more likely that the FCC will start regulating Apple.
I’ve got nothing important to add here, but I will say that I trust Google more than I trust Apple. For a company that makes some damned nice products, Apple sure does some shitty things… and it is certainly going to influence my future computer/phone buying decisions…
“I will say that I trust Google more than I trust Apple”
Hitler…Stalin…Stalin…Hitler…I always have trouble with these tricky questions
I’ll take option (C) General Franco
“we have to remember that we are dealing with companies here, and by definition, companies lie. By policy, companies will lie and deceit until their pants combust”
i’m sorry but i call bullshit, some companies lie sure, but to say that business in general are full of liars is way off base, the vast majority of business are honest for 1 simple reason ……… it keeps them in business.
if you think a business must be dishonest to get ahead you are sorely mistaken.
the same principals apply to small and large businesses so don’t give me this song and dance about corrupt big business.
bad apples … sure, but most are quite honest.
i am a business owner myself, and i really do not appreciate the generalization.
agreed. Apple has better design and less integrity than most companies.
The “vast majority” hey? (Muffled laughter).
The same principles do not apply to businesses and corporations for one simple reason; Corporations are legally bound to make their decisions based solely in the interests of their shareholders, businesses are not.
So, if that means sueing the country of Bolivia because they can’t afford to pay you for their drinking water anymore cause you jacked up the cost by 60%, then so be it!
The mistake you are making is that you think that people are proactive in finding out what corporations do, or more importantly, you think that people actually care. In short, they aren’t and they don’t.
A little education:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y&feature=channel
Do Google, Apple, and AT&T lie? I think that’s the point here and the answer to all 3 is “Yes!” so that we no longer have a question about that. Unlike some, I don’t trust any of the 3 and before anyone says that it’s the U.S.A. businesses that are the problem, corruption and under-the-table dealing happens everywhere.
I maintain that AT&T have a lot to do with this situation, despite what’s been said. After all, this is a company that restricts the use of their mobile phones to call toll-free numbers to keep their customers from using the network bandwidth for hours at a time.
Also, Apple, like Steve Jobs, are control freaks. They want the experience controlled, so I don’t doubt that they want the look-and-feel of the phone to be uncompromised.
Google, despite their constant beta status and open source projects are not a benevolent society as some people think. By providing applications are extremely useful but contort a device’s UI and consistent appearance and behaviour, they have an opportunity to make people comfortable with their own UI thinking and push people toward products using their software.
Within reason, Apple should allow any application that doesn’t cause anyone harm. I just believe that there are a lot of back-door/under-the-table dealings that cannot be expressed officially.
So this boils down to :
Google: “Apple’s not being fair, waaa!! We didn’t do nothing wrong – Apple did it.”
Apple: “It wasn’t us, we didn’t do nothing.. Google is lying!!”
My reaction is, as always:
(1) A Google service wants my data. A Google service can’t have it. I don’t want Google to route my calls and listen in to my conversations.
(2) Apple uses GSM. The USA is pretty much CDMA and has a shoddy and underpowered GSM network, but the rest of the world pretty much uses GSM. I can’t feel sorry for the US – you chose the wrong standard.
(3) Google voice is not available outside of the US. It seems unlikely that GoogleVoice will make it to Europe any time soon as every country has its own phone number format which means they would need a version for every country. It is so far away from my radar, I really couldn’t give a fig about it.
To quote a famous British comedy sketch, “Cheque please…”
(1) Why would you care about Google seeing your data? If you live in the UK then you have no privacy anyways. You would trust Google less than some bureaucrats and secret police?
In the US, ATT is more likely to share your data with the state than Google is.
(2) T-Mobile has excellent coverage in the US and uses GSM. This point is not relevant to the topic, in any case.
(3) Also not relevant. Google voice isn’t available in India either. Who cares?
The AT&T network that is being rolled out is 3G WCDMA UMTS at 850Mhz and 2100Mhz for extra capacity in the metropolitan areas. Verizon is upgrading their network from CDMA which is a dead end technology to 4G which will work with the iPhone if unlocked in the future.
As for unlocking, is it possible to purchase an unlocked phone in New Zealand and take it to the US and use it?
AT&T originally deployed HSDPA 3.6 in the 1900MHz PCS band. They are now rebanding their HSDPA service to the 850MHz “Cellular” band to get better in-building penetration and capacity mainly due to their large number of iPhone users.
They never had any 2100MHz spectrum. In the US 2100MHz is used for sat<->ground and other microwave stuff. The FCC had allocated 2100Mhz long before Europe chose 2100MHz for their UMTS 3G service.
The rebanding to 850MHz means that suddenly many of the AT&T 2G users lose coverage, because 1900MHz just doesn’t go as far and that’s where the 2G coverage now in markets like San Francisco and New York. AT&T basically screwed over the 2G users to help out the iPhone 3G[S].
1. what is Google’s retention policy and how much political pressure does it take for them to open up the database? If you delete something, can you be sure that it is purges from Google’s servers or is it simply not visible through the webapp?
2. GSM is broken and will only become more broken. It’s not a technology to be proud of given how long the providers have known that it was broken; the average users are always the last to learn about these issues.
3. I agree that the limited distribution area of Google’s voice service is not relevant. The issue is that it’s been arbitrarily rejected for duplicating iPhone like features; just the way Skype duplicate’s iPhone features (and baug bless Skype for it).
T-Mobile doesn’t have excellent coverage in the US. It has excellent coverage in *many* places, but nowhere near as many as Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T. They simply don’t have licenses in as many areas as the other 3 do. But their network can be very good in the areas they do serve.
Their 3G network, while getting better, is still a joke anywhere outside city centers that they do choose to serve. They haven’t built it out well enough yet to compete with AT&T, let alone Verizon and Sprint, who actually do happen to have so much more 3G coverage than AT&T that it’s a joke.
http://www.cellularmaps.com/image/t-mo_3g_79.jpg
Compare that to:
http://www.cellularmaps.com/image/vzw_3g_t_compare_97.jpg
(1) Because Google seems to want a finger in every pie – they are just as likely to abuse my data as any other company, but at least if I reduce the number of companies with access to my data, I limit the distribution of it.
(2) GSM is the US is a very poor second runner to CDMA, no matter who provides the service.
Google Voice is what caused this whole stink. The point it – it was rejected/held-up/disallowed for variuous reasons – both political and strategic in nature – that much is obvious. If it had been in the UK, I doubt we’d have this issue, as O2 are a lot more forgiving. I can’t speak for other territiories, but for the UK the whole debate is extremely moot.
Google pwned Apple on this one. At this point, if it’s not rejected, then approve it. I read a previous comment where someone made fun of google complainging to FCC. Um, that would be valid if google would continue in the web of lies apple came up with. But Apple is predictable. Everyone knows this, google proved it.
Write letters, block our final statement, send it out.
Let them send theirs with backtalk and lies and truth twisted to go on forever.
Reveal the end all final statement when you have everyone attention.
Do it now or it will be done later when phones can VM, if not done by hack. Now i see why Palm didn’t sit with Apple on the sync. Like it or not that app will be on that device.
Google is done. They said Apple rejected it. So if you didn’t then approve it. What is there to talk about?
Personally, I think the question who’s right is pretty simple:
Even though it is known that Apple takes several weeks to approve/reject a submitted app, the decision that is then made is final. A rejected app can only be approved after reconsideration when the issues on which the rejection was made, are fully resolved.
Any iPhone App developer can tell you that Apple’s procedure is:
1. Wait a few weeks;
2. Test the application in 48 hours’ time;
3. Respond to the developer (approved/rejected).
There is no “4. consider any longer”. As such, the claim that Apple is “still considering” the app makes no sense. It has never been done that way, so why should it be different? Then again, if they did choose to take longer than usual this time, why did they not voice that to Google in this way, thereby avoiding FCC involvement? Instead, Google themselves have indicated that the response (step 3 above) did not include substantial information on how to change the Google Voice App in order to obtain approval after a later reconsideration.
I thought we were going to stop harping on the Apple crap! Does someone have an Axe to grind with Apple? Apparently so. Personally, I couldn’t care less what Apple does as I don’t use their hardware or software. It wouldn’t break my heart to see these articles on page 2.
A month a go now or more there was an article stating why they where going to focus on Apple. If Apple didn’t provide so much negativity, there wouldn’t be so much negative reports to harp on. This is being made aware of what the company is already doing rather than negative company policy resulting from this site’s articles. If a tree falls in the woods and squishes a little bunny, the bunny still get’s squished even if no one reports it.
Transparency of businesses is much better for the market and end user. You, directly or indirectly, benefit from this harping on Apple. Either the company reconsider some of it’s policies and scummy actions or as a consumer, you make a more informed decision and hopefully promote more ethical business practices.
can be clearly expressed by words of Sören Kierkegaard: The daily press is evil principle of the modern world, and time will only serve to disclose this fact with greater and greater clearness. The capacity of the newspaper for degeneration is sophistically without limit, since it can always sink lower and lower in its choice of readers. At last it will stir up all those dregs of humanity which no state or government can control. -The Last Years: Journals 1853-55