×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple vs. Google, Who Will Control the iPhone?

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the that's-a-good-question dept.

Cellphones 213

Pieroxy writes "Theiphoneblog carries a nice article on the reason Apple rejected the Google Voice application even though it doesn't violate any terms and services. The article goes in depth over the issue of controlling the hardware (Apple) vs. controlling the software (Google & Apple so far) and how Apple doesn't want Google to take over a critical part of its phone. Just like Google is going into the OS business to make sure it never gets cut out, Apple is also building a huge data center to — they guess — take over some online cloud computing business of their own and be less dependent on Google for these services."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

213 comments

slashdot !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172465)

Slllasssshhhdooott !!

eat my shorts !!

Who will control the iPhone? (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172471)

Probably at the end of the day it will be some 17 year old hardware hacking genius from Croatia.

The skills and resources of the hardware hacking community is far out-stepping the biggest corporations. I'm surprised at their resourcefulness every day when I read about a new hack.

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172715)

Yeah, cause hacking something developed by talented engineers from scratch takes so much more talent.

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172843)

Actually yes. MythTV kicks the utter crap out of any other PVR ever made.

The MythTV developers are at least 800% more talented than ALL of the TiVo dev team combined.

do you not understand how 3000 developers are better than 10? did you not pass basic math in high school?

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (4, Insightful)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172947)

Actually yes. MythTV kicks the utter crap out of any other PVR ever made.

The MythTV developers are at least 800% more talented than ALL of the TiVo dev team combined.

do you not understand how 3000 developers are better than 10? did you not pass basic math in high school?

I'm not bagging on the Myth guys at all -- they've done a great job. But I know from experience that creating the second new something is much easier than the first. This is the "First Waffle Theory". This theory works especially well if you can get someone else to make that first one.

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172959)

I would take a product designed and tested by a 10 person dev team over a 3000 person dev team any day.

If you think MythTV was designed by 3k in people you are wrong. There were probably 20-30 (probably less) core devs. With tons of small contributions. This is typical of most projects like this.

You are thinking of the it takes nine months to make a baby put 9 women on it. It *DOES NOT WORK*. You end up with product that does to much with too little focus.

I have used most of the PVRs out there. For simplicity I like Microsoft media center. For functionality either xbmc or myth. The last two are a pita to setup.

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173025)

You are thinking of the it takes nine months to make a baby put 9 women on it. It *DOES NOT WORK*. You end up with product that does to much with too little focus.

Yeah, but there's one hell of a lucky male in that picture that you forgot to mention ;)

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29173057)

And that is why you stick with a crappy product like Vista instead of using Linux or BSD.

your closed minded view keeps you behind the curve and in the dark.

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173159)

For simplicity I like Microsoft media center. For functionality either xbmc or myth. The last two are a pita to setup.

Wha...What???

XBMC can be set up faster and easier than you can get the Windows Vista install CD out of the box. XBMC live does it all for you.

The same for MythTV Mythbuntu does everything but set up the cable provider zipcode.

If you think for a minute that Windows Media center can even touch those in ease of setup you have never tried XBMC or MythTV or your experience is from 5 years ago.

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (3, Interesting)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29174207)

Mythbuntu does everything but set up the cable provider zipcode.

I wish. For one thing it sets up the permissions wrong. Another is that it either formats partitions if you didn't tell it to or it refuses to mount them if you didn't choose to format them. Then there's setting up the storage - I understand LVM but I have no idea what "storage groups" are even supposed to be? Directories? Something like logical volumes? To add insult to injury the default partitioning recipe puts your media where it will be lost if you upgrade. Everyone agrees this is wrong but it's been like that for a year and at least one major version.

Mythbuntu is a big disappointment. I'm going to give Mythtv one last go as a separate install and then sod it.

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#29174337)

For simplicity I like Microsoft media center. For functionality either xbmc or myth. The last two are a pita to setup.

Wha...What???

XBMC can be set up faster and easier than you can get the Windows Vista install CD out of the box. XBMC live does it all for you.

The same for MythTV Mythbuntu does everything but set up the cable provider zipcode.

If you think for a minute that Windows Media center can even touch those in ease of setup you have never tried XBMC or MythTV or your experience is from 5 years ago.

What about drivers for the hardware? Have you used Windows 7? It seems to be getting all the drivers from Windows update, atleast for the rigs I have tried it on(3 year old machines too). Looks like they bundled a ton of network drivers on the disc, and once you connect to the internet, voila, almost all hardware has drivers. This is one of the most tricky and annoying aspects of installing MythBuntu.

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (1, Offtopic)

Gordo_1 (256312) | more than 4 years ago | (#29174075)

> Actually yes. MythTV kicks the utter crap out of any other PVR ever made.

Um, perhaps if your sole criteria for success is ability to skip commercials? Aside from that, even wrapped in a Mythbuntu 9.0.4 LiveCD install, it's an unpolished, hardware compatibility and maintenance nightmare that has an installation routine well outside of the reach of the average consumer. I had to write a dozen scripts to get the thing to do what Windows Media Center did perfectly from the get-go -- all ina bid to get automatic commercial skipping... barely worth it IMO.

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172737)

Apple vs Google, Who Will Control the iPhone?

The same people who have been controlling it this whole time: the homosexuals.

...or are their iPhones controlling them?

Re:Who will control the iPhone? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173027)

I don't think that ingenuity or resourcefulness really comes into the "who controls the platform" question. DIY outshines the achievements of the professionals in every market you care to name, but it just doesn't scale to world domination. If it did, Linux hackers selling 5GHz nitrogen-cooled palmtops with built-in 3D prototyping equipment and "mad leet" LED downlighting would be in control of the PC market.

This proves that software is where the money is. (4, Insightful)

master_p (608214) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172519)

This is very important for the industry. It proves, once more, that software is more important than hardware.

It also proves that Apple follows a wrong path selling hardware. It has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to.

Now Google comes and stills their business - if users are accustomed to Google services, they could be tempted to buy an Android-based phone in the future, since the services would be similar to the ones they were used to.

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (4, Insightful)

kdogg73 (771674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172597)

Are cars more important than the quality of the roads they drive on?

I can see myself taking either side of this argument depending on the situation. Without quality hardware, you'll never get to this quality software. This goes beyond the box, as you must consider the infrastructure that connects us all. Quality hardware and software will work in tandem.

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (3, Interesting)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173811)

Right track, wrong analogy.

Which sells more cars? The latest and most bleeding edge engine, or the curves and colours of the body? The accuracy of the speedometer, or the layout of the dashboard? The effectiveness of the airbags, or the fact the seats are heated? The range on a single tank of gas, or the ipod interface to the radio?

The fact is that though we really *should* care more about the former, society generally seems to care more about the latter. We assume the former works, so all advancement is assumed in the latter. We assume the basics (e.g., hardware) are all covered and are perfect, and it's only software that has the problems (or, in the car analogy above, the niceties and extras that are optional and thus distinguishing between vehicles).

What Apple showed was that our old cell phone hardware could be shown as drastically out of date. What they're getting hurt by is the apps: everyone is just assuming their hardware now. Its value has been commoditised, even if the price tag hasn't been. Google, RIM, and any other competitors in this space are out to show that the hardware really is commodity. Google just has an interesting take on that tactic: by providing a user-interface that is phone-independant, they really are making the hardware commodity.

I sold cars for awhile (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29174219)

..so I can answer that. Bling and shiny sell cars. Heck, I have sold cars where they never even looked at the engine or drove it, once I sold a car that had a dead engine but a very nice shiny body and decent non trashed interior (these were all used cars). After the sale agreement, and the customer didn't know it had a dead engine, he never asked to drive it, or I would have told him, I made the mechs go through their pile of stuff and build an engine. the customer just went over, looked at it sitting there and walked over to me and said "how much"? that was it, the total transaction. So he leaves, says he is coming back in the morning wih the check, I told the mechanics then they had to stay there as late as it took and get an engine built and installed because in the morning the dude was coming by to pick up the car. They did it, too. But that bling and shiny, it was the sharpest looking ride on the lot, did the sale. Now ME, I couldn't care less, I look for fluid leaks, the pattern of wear on the tires, the sound of it starting, all that stuff, check out everything mechanical before I even think about the bodywork or shiny-ness.

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (5, Insightful)

readthemall (1531267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172673)

And if you don't want to pay Apple or Google for such 'services', you can stick to the traditional model where one can choose among hundreds of phone models and use them with several providers. Just like we have several big photo camera manufacturers, and a few more independent lens manufacturers.

A phone is just a phone and we don't need it to become another computer platform to be monopolized. Stop selling me services, please, I only need a phone (that is, hardware).

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (3, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173091)

This cannot be understated. The computer industry experienced exponential growth once it became open. It all started the day Compaq produced the first IBM PC clone. That day will only come for phones/PDAs when people can use any phone, with software from any company or individual, with any telephone service provider.

We need to treat phone technology openly, just like...well... almost every other piece of hardware on earth (TVs, CD players, vacuum cleaners, hammers, baseballs, ...)

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (5, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173731)

It also proves that Apple follows a wrong path selling hardware. It has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to.

Apple DOESN'T want to. They are in a nice spot right now - they can sell fewer product, but at higher margins than the rest of the industry. They don't care that their sales volume is smaller, or their marketshare is 1/10th of their competitor. Once you start lusting after more people, it becomes a race to the bottom. It's why Apple has no computer to compete against the low-end PCs, why the mid-range Apples don't have features enthusiasts want (i.e., expandability), etc. It gets harder to meet the needs of more diverse set of people, and marginal costs to support the next customer rise faster than revenue gained from those extra customers.

The iPod is an irregularity, and while a money maker, you can tell Apple's not really liking having to sell a whole range of iPods - the line's pretty much stagnated except for the Touch. The only thing keeping them up there is that their competitors are equally stuck - unable to out-iPod the iPod.

This cannot be understated. The computer industry experienced exponential growth once it became open. It all started the day Compaq produced the first IBM PC clone. That day will only come for phones/PDAs when people can use any phone, with software from any company or individual, with any telephone service provider.

The cellphone industry already has seen this. 10 years ago, the cellphone population was nowhere near where it is now. Maybe 20 years ago if we include the rest of the world. Cellphones are everywhere. Nokia makes the vast majority of the phones sold, and thus, the vast majority of the phones sold can also run Java applets. There's very little growth left - those who want "a phone" have the low end (which is increasingly including stuff like cameras, mp3 players and such). Those who want an awesome email platform have the millions of Blackberry models out there. Those who want to surf the web have tons of phones that run WebKit. All Apple brought to the table was innovation - the only way to break into a crowded market. Even the iPhone's low marketshare makes Apple happy - they command a good chunk of industry revenues.

And we won't see open hardware and open OS distributions anytime soon - phones are embedded devices and highly customized to their hardware. Take a look at DD-WRT for open hardware and open OS, and see how many different binaries you need to support all those routers. And that's just because they all are based off similar hardware designs, but still there's no "install this software package and it'll configure itself" distribution.

As for the "any service provider" - we're already there. It's called GSM (or UMTS/LTE... 3GPP anyhow). Buy an unlocked phone. Buy a SIM card. Put latter into former. Make calls. Go to another country. Buy a new SIM card. Replace existing SIM. Make calls.

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (2, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173899)

It's why Apple has no computer to compete against the low-end PCs

I guess the Mac Mini [apple.com] is just a figment of my imagination, then?

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173277)

Now Google comes and stills[sic] their business -

(emphasis mine)

Was about to say, nah, spell checkers are where money is. But then I realized, steals Vs stills is an error that is not easy to catch by spell and grammar checkers and one needs a fairly sophisticated AI to do context analysis. No there is no money there.

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (2, Insightful)

bay43270 (267213) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173279)

It also proves that Apple follows a wrong path selling hardware. It has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to.

How does it prove that? Apple is in the business of making money. Right now their making more than almost any software company (with one major exception) and many of their hardware competitors. While I wish they would behave a little different for my personal benefit, you can't pretend they aren't doing what's in their best interest.

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173287)

Without the hardware, there is no software.

If Apple hadn't built the iPhone, I 1000% guarantee you that none of the established players would have. Just look at the track record of Nokia, Motorola, HTC and others - Apple changed the cell phone landscape forever.

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173821)

Seems pretty short sighted to think that no other company would have thought of an "iPhone" like devise.

Of course, myself not beign a fan of touch screens, I think that could have been a good thing.

Apple lacks confidence in their software (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173539)

This is very important for the industry. It proves, once more, that software is more important than hardware. [...] [Apple] has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to.

If Apple's software were so much better than Google's, Apple would have no problem in competing with Google on a level playing field. Instead, Apple is using their control over the iPhone hardware (and the iPhone hardware is pretty nice) to try to avoid face competition against Google software altogether.

So, what this really shows us is that Apple itself lacks confidence in the competitiveness of their software, because if they thought that Apple's services and software were so much better than Google's, they wouldn't worry about approving Google's applications.

Re:Apple lacks confidence in their software (3, Insightful)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173885)

That doesn't follow. Just because you CAN compete with someone else on a level playing field doesn't mean you want too. If you and I were dueling to the death with pistols, and I know that I am slightly better than you and thus likely to win, should I refuse to allow a further handicap of your abilities just because I'm pretty sure I can win anyway? If I were an honorable man, or a man wishing to appear honorable for some person in the audience, I might indeed refuse to allow you to be further handicapped. Companies have no such honor. Companies take any advantage they can get, even if they already have other advantages.

Generally speaking, the court of public opinion seems to think that Apple makes one of the best smart-phones on the market right now. It's extremely popular and selling more units daily. Google has had considerably more limited success with Android. This hardly means that Apple is going to let Google find new advantages to catch up if they can help it. By preference they want to keep their dominance, and do so with the least possible effort on their part.

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (3, Insightful)

suzerain (245705) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173709)

I agree with your second point, actually, and that may well be something that concerns Apple. But I disagree with the assertion in the second paragraph: Apple likes to control the software on its devices, because...they really aren't a hardware company. If they were, they'd have been dead long ago.

Apple's always been a 'solutions' company; that's what they sell. The iPhone is not the flash memory and processor and screen; it's a package, where they fairly seamlessly combined software and hardware together into a complete whole.

I didn't buy my MacBook Pro because it has a 2.8 Ghz Intel processor and blah blah...all laptops on the market are essentially the same. I bought it because it runs OS X well, without hackery, and is generally well made. I don't necessarily use all of them, but iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iWork, and so on are all very nice pieces of software in their own ways, but Apple doesn't try to profit hugely directly from them.

So the point is: Apple's always been part (and maybe mostly) software company; the difference between them and Microsoft (in most markets) is that Apple just uses the software to sell hardware, whereas Microsoft's empire was all about the software sales itself. So, I can see why Apple's threatened by Google (though as an Apple consumer, I wish they'd get over it and compete instead of trying to block everyone that's outdoing them).

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (2, Insightful)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173893)

It also proves that Apple follows a wrong path selling hardware. It has some nice software in its hands, and it could become an alternative to Microsoft/Google if they wanted to.

Now, where to start with this...

I don't really use either Apple or Microsoft (my iBook gathers dust and my Windows partition is there for games) but I don't really hate either even though it seems to be fashionable, especially with Ms).

Microsoft and Google really can't be lumped together. The Venn diagrams for their areas of operation don't intersect that much. They do compete for mindshare though.

Microsoft makes :

  • operating systems
  • corporate software
  • home software
  • "communication" software (including corporate groupware, but also personal "sharing stuff", and "chatting online" apps")
  • online presence apps
  • a search engine with maps
  • development frameworks
  • computer peripherals (made by others of course)
  • fud

Google makes :

  • a search engine, search and indexing tools with maps
  • online applications (simple office apps, reasonably complete email)
  • libraries (often web oriented)
  • an advertising marketplace and framework
  • a number of (mostly free) applications
  • large scale online presence and community web sites that are free or low cost
  • dubious deals

Apple makes :

  • marketing
  • design (designed in California !)
  • hardware (that's apparently quite good past 1.0)
  • software (completely closed apart from the bottom-most layer)

Granted, Apple *could* just sell its system openly for any intel system (meaning anything that has an x86 instruction set or x86_64). And then what ?

Then Apple would end up where Linux or BSD is. With way less people to fix it. Currently, you certainly can run Mac OS on pretty much any x86 system. You'll probably have lots of fun finding drivers for your stuff if my experience with my Mac is anything to go by but I'm sure that for the most part it'll run.

And then what ? Do you think there's money in selling CDs with 0s and 1s on them ?

Apple makes money moving boxes (mostly small boxes with little music players in them at the moment). Selling operating systems is the best way to kill a company. Ask Be Inc. At the time they were so far ahead of Apple (or of Microsoft for that matter) technologically (ok, Apple was 5 or 10 years behind at the time so it was quite easy) that it wasn't even funny. Of course nobody cared.
Or look at NeXT when it tried to gulp a few lungfuls of air before going under when it was selling its system for generic PCs. That was under the direction of Jesus^H^H^H^H^HSteve Jobs BTW.

You may be fond of Apple products, which is something you'll have to deal with on your own, and isn't a serious condition anyway, but it doesn't mean they are fit to take over the computing world. I'm glad it works for you and if it's important to you you'll probably be able to switch over a number of casual users.

However, remember that if the best product at a given time took over the market, we'd have all run Amiga computers for quite a while. In any market, quality doesn't have a lot (if anything) to do with its success on the marketplace. There are *a lot* of factors in play. And currently, while the play field isn't as varied as it was in the 8 bit days, we're still lucky to have 3 fairly active players, none of which can ignore the others. This is a good thing for all involved. It probably would be beneficial to lower a bit the influence of the major player, but to remove any of them certainly would hurt the whole ecosystem.

Re:This proves that software is where the money is (2, Interesting)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29174165)

Apple has ALWAYS followed the hardware path.

When IBM tried to lock down their hardware and failed, Apple succeeded.

IBM tried to regain control with the PS/2 using the same tricks apple did--but it failed for exactly that reason, most people rejected a single vendor system.

If Apple were to try to replace Google's services, I'd probably ignore Apple's offerings (Ever notice that Apple tries to charge for every little thing? I have some icon in my toolbar that I can't get rid of that's linked to a pay apple service, why aren't they being sued for this--Microsoft sure would be!).

If I couldn't replace them, I'd look at Android. I really like my Mac but at this point Google is much more important to me.

(I was already called a Microsoft "Secret" marketing droid on /. once this year, going for Google now. After that I'll take on Mac for the trifecta)

who will control the iPhone (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172523)

I know who should control it, the user.

Re:who will control the iPhone (5, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172741)

With Apple, it is very doubtful that the users will have a say. Jobs is the ultimate end-user of Apple products and will dictate his views no matter what.

Re:who will control the iPhone (5, Insightful)

KnownIssues (1612961) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173373)

With Apple, users do have a say... with their wallets. And users will continue to pay money to Apple because Apple continues to make products that do what those users want better than the alternatives (Microsoft, *nix, etc). So Apple will continue to dictate what can be done on/with their platform.

Re:who will control the iPhone (2, Insightful)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172779)

That's just crazy talk. How can you possible expect a mere user to control something like hardware? We, the hardware and proprietary OS manufacturers, together with our good friends at the RIAA know exactly what should and shouldn't be done with our hardware. Users sometimes whine about not being able to do something, but that's just because they are confused and don't really need to do it. We know best, and we know what they need. If you think we're wrong, email suckered-for-millions-in-license-fees@big-hardware-vendors.con

Re:who will control the iPhone (4, Insightful)

Qubit (100461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172889)

Mod parent up!

Name one large company that you'd trust to hold the reigns to your personal computing devices. Just one.

How about i-rootkit-you-Sony, or i-turn-you-in-Yahoo? Plays-for-only-a-limited-amount-of-time-for-sure-Microsoft?

Large companies by necessity will bow to government pressures. Large companies by necessity (and legal duty) will listen to the demands of their stockholders. The users are several steps down on the list.

Re:who will control the iPhone (0, Troll)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173439)

Large companies by necessity will bow to government pressures

I'd just like to point out that there's one particular political party in the U.S. and their well-financed backers (that includes the most-often watched "news" station) that scream bloody murder and calling people nazis whenever anyone tries to get the government to provide more adequate oversight for anything, much less corporations. Maybe if that party would STFU we might have more consumer rights in the U.S. and we might have more control over our own products.

Re:who will control the iPhone (2, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173067)

I came here to say the very same thing. I've read several articles on the case now. (Oddly, I've not yet read TFA, LOL)

Both Apple and Google ultimately work for the CUSTOMER. If the customer wants such and such, then the customer should get such and such - not what Jobs thinks is best for the customer, and not what Google thinks the customer wants. (Someone is going to pop off with the idea that Apple works for it's stockholders - allow me to quickly point out that the customer's dollars pay the stockholder's investment returns)

In this particular case, I think that the customer wants what Google is offering. It should be made available, so that the customer can vote with his dollars. I don't have any Mac products, but I do get tired of reading about Mac acting like a martinette, telling the world what is acceptable on their phones and computers.

Everyone should jailbreak their damned phones, and use them as they see fit. Everyone who paid for a phone has paid for that right.

Re:who will control the iPhone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29173387)

Google's customers are other corporations that want Google to place their ads on the web.

It is popular to grandstand about 'rights' here at Slashdot, and to allow the groupthink to color the view of what the masses want out of their electronic devices. Android phones were supposed to topple iPhone, like OpenMoko was, and like Linux was going to topple Windows, like Chrome OS is supposed to do. And on and on.

The facts are that in order to make money in the cell phone market a company has to sell a whole bunch of phones. Not enough people care about software freedom for it to figure in to doing that.

Re:who will control the iPhone (2, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173771)

The customer is always right.

(Which proves that I will never have access to a time machine capable of going back in time far enough to off the twit that first said that or that event will only occur in an alternate timeline leaving this one to suffer, for eternity, the pain and suffering caused by that statement.)

If the customer wants something that will put you out of business you shouldn't have to give that to them. Someone else can provide it, but you shouldn't have to commit financial suicide. There's nothing stopping google from making their own phone that runs google voice natively.

Re:who will control the iPhone (1, Insightful)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173933)

"Both Apple and Google ultimately work for the CUSTOMER."

No, they don't. Both Apple and Google ultimately work for the CEO. I was going to say "...for the stakeholders" but even this is false nowadays as the recent economical crisis and the millionaire bail out clauses for their higher ranks demonstrates. The customer is not a high priority for any company but a nuisance at most.

"If the customer wants such and such, then the customer should get such and such"

Unless, of course, we can lock them in by other (and cheaper and more surer) means like closed data formats, or blatant FUD, or by passing abusing laws, or by making them wanting what we offer by means of marketing campaigns, or by making invisible our competitors so there's no apparent choice (or buying them out, or burying them in patent claims, or...).

"allow me to quickly point out that the customer's dollars pay the stockholder's investment returns"

What will be your next fairy tale? That the "invisible hand" regulates the market? It's quite a lot of time ago that stockholder's investment is not covered by the customers but by the trade market which may or may not be related to the commercial success of a company.

Apple does not want to become (3, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172527)

the MS of the phone era.
Make the software and see an internet portal become the end user experience.
Or they could just have a VOIP deal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8217871.stm [bbc.co.uk]

but Apple is becoming MS (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173577)

It's funny you use MS as the example of a failed monopoly; I don't think we're quite there yet. MS is still using its near monopoly to push other services, including their Internet portals.

But, in any case, Apple is becoming the MS of the phone era, by trying to use one big success (phone hardware) into another big success (online services). It's not at the level of a monopoly yet, but that was exactly Microsoft's strategy: bundling and tying.

Re:Apple does not want to become (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29173747)

Why wouldn't Apple want to become the MS of the phone era? Would Apple rather become the next...Apple? Do they want to be the dominant player or do they want to almost die off when a competitor that caters to consumers and developers comes by? Again?

When playing at being an analyst.. (4, Insightful)

onion2k (203094) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172577)

These articles crop up pretty much daily on various blogs. They all follow a very clear pattern:

1. Pick a hot IT company.
2. Pick a service they're not providing.
3. Pick something that they're spending money on.
4. Relate points 2 and 3.

There's no evidence that the two things are related. For all we know Apple might be getting back into selling time-slices on servers because Steve Jobs has hit his head and thinks it's 1983 again. These sorts of poorly researched, uninsightful articles that are absolutely nothing more than *a guess* are completely pointless.

Google is dependant on all phone manufacturers (5, Interesting)

mcwop (31034) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172615)

Daring Fireball had a good piece on this:
Googleâ(TM)s dependence on hardware and carrier partners puts the final product out of their control â" and into the control of companies whose histories have shown them to be incompetent at design and hostile to users.
Iâ(TM)d be happy to be proven wrong, but my hunch is that the only way weâ(TM)ll see an iPhone-caliber Android phone is if Google does what theyâ(TM)ve said theyâ(TM)re not going to do, which is to design and ship their own reference model âoegPhoneâ. That doesnâ(TM)t mean Android wonâ(TM)t still be successful in some sense if it remains on its current course, but that I donâ(TM)t expect it to be successful in the âoeholy shit is this awesome!â sense that the iPhone is.

http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/the_android_opportunity [daringfireball.net]

Re:Google is dependant on all phone manufacturers (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172821)

, but that I donâ(TM)t expect it to be successful in the âoeholy shit is this awesome!â sense that the iPhone is. http://daringfireball.net/2009/08/the_android_opportunity [daringfireball.net]

He is absolutely right, Android is much more likely to be successful in the "the overwhelming majority of cell phones use it" sense than in the "holy shit this is awesome" sense. Of course, Google is aiming for the former not the latter.

Re:Google is dependant on all phone manufacturers (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172953)

YOU FAIL IT (it is sanitizing UTF8 quote marks)

Re:Google is dependant on all phone manufacturers (3, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173341)

The "holy shit" part of the iPhone is the OS, though. The original hardware was merely adequate, and only barely for anyone who didn't live in a nest of wi-fi hotspots. Yet it was enough to sell the OS to people.

To release the One True Google Phone would undo the platform's great advantage. If someone walks into a phone store and wants something that's like an iPhone, but kind of different, probably half of the alternatives are going to be Android handsets.

None of the above? (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172627)

What about the phone user? Why can't we control our phones? Is it a communication device or a profit platform?

And what about the workers who build and maintain the phones and the network infrastructure?

This situation calls out for soviet power!

iPhone Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172663)

Apple should be thanking Google for implementing features that they should have included in their phone themselves.

As usual Steve Jobs is taking it the ass from the folks in the marketing department so I doubt things will change any time soon.

Wow this brings up a good point.... (0, Redundant)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172847)

In the hipster-doofus lovefest that is for all things Apple/Google it's important to note one very key point about your benevolent dictators:

AAPL/GOOG are publicly traded companies and as such their only obligation is to make a profit for their stockholders

That means AAPL does things like heading further down it's proprietary path (yeah when Microsoft does it people scream about it) and Google does things that they have to to make a profit (like cooperating with Chinese authorities which turns "Do No Evil" into a guideline and not a rule.)

Maybe they should change their motto to "We do less evil than everyone else"

Re:Wow this brings up a good point.... (3, Interesting)

The Second Horseman (121958) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173059)

Google is going to be the Wal-Mart of the industry - both on services (trying to get everyone to rely on them instead of having their own IT organizations) and on information (the ridiculous, likely-treaty-violating WGA deal, for example), etc. Relying on content from web sites to deliver ads, but then sharing little of the revenue, etc.

They haven't figured out how to be a "good parasite" yet - but few have noticed, because they're just becoming big enough to kill the ecosystem they're relying on. Trust me - Google is Wal-Mart. And as much as I really don't care for Apple, they'd be smart to keep Google at arms length.

MOD UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29173497)

This post is spot on.

Re:Wow this brings up a good point.... (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173269)

That means AAPL does things like heading further down it's proprietary path (yeah when Microsoft does it people scream about it) and Google does things that they have to to make a profit (like cooperating with Chinese authorities which turns "Do No Evil" into a guideline and not a rule.)

Easy, because people are greedy and they'd love to have MS's share. Sure MS has done some horrible, horrible things, but do you think every bit of criticism levied against them is purely altruistic? They have a huge share and people want that share.

When it comes to Apple, they have read their Cathedral and the Bazaar and they realized that people will work under asinine conditions for margins of the profit made on their product as long as they can point over and say, "Look at my iPhone app.". This all happens while Apple laughs all the way to the bank. Under the PC and Mac platforms this would have been totally unacceptable. But with the iPhone, we'll all dance the dance.

Re:Wow this brings up a good point.... (2, Insightful)

vertinox (846076) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173615)

AAPL/GOOG are publicly traded companies and as such their only obligation is to make a profit for their stockholders

No. Publicly traded companies are only obligated to obey the votes of their shareholders which in some cases is contrary to making a profit.

In that regard both AAPL and GOOG have a small set of people controlling the votes so they can choose how to operate.

Of course most public companies are about the whole profit only thing simply because that is what their shareholders want.

In that regard, APPL, GOOG, and MSFT can basically blow through millions in R&D and short term unprofitable ventures (like the fact Xbox lost them money and not until the Xbox 360 did they get money back... what was that 5 years?) and the shareholders can't get rid of the CEO.

Equally Bad Logic. (4, Informative)

nato10 (600871) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172879)

The TechCrunch rebuttal to the points of Apple's letter is spot on, but the idea that somehow Google has power over the iPhone, or that Google Voice gives it more power, is nonsense. It's hard to believe Apple really thinks this, or that TechCrunch would accept it as a valid explanation. How does having iPhone users receive calls via their Google Voice number affect the iPhone overall at all? iPhone users still have to use AT&T for their calls? It no longer ties the user strongly to their iPhone phone number, but with number portability that represents no advantage for Apple or AT&T. Having Google manage your calendar and contacts doesn't make any difference to the iPhone in general. Google Voice may give Google more power over individual iPhone users, but not over the iPhone itself.

And all Apple would have left is the browser? No, Apple would still have the industry's most advanced, user-friendly handheld OS and probably a hundred thousand apps, including--if they turn out to popular enough to be a thread--Google Voice. If Google has any power over the iPhone, it stems only from their willingness to pull a Microsoft and withdraw those apps and technologies from the iPhone at some point in the future, such as when it comes time for Apple and Google to renegotiate their license for YouTube, maps, and search. But the flip side is equally true; there's no question that its to Google's advantage to be a prominent part of the smart phone platform likely to cell hundreds of millions over the next five years.

In short, I don't think we've heard the real rationale; certainly TechCrunch didn't provide a believable one. I think it's more likely that Apple perceives Google's calendar and contacts apps as a threat to Mobile Me, which does compete directly with Google. Or that Google Voice potentially interferes with something else Apple considers a unique advantage, perhaps something that they aren't even using yet but is in development. And finally, it's possible that Apple really isn't worried about Google Voice per se, but is worried about opening the door to other challenges to their "no duplication of built-in functionality" rule.

Re:Equally Bad Logic. (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172971)

While Google certainly has contracts with Apple to continue support for youtube and maps, a new application (Google Voice) that would be overly popular could make Google more powerful over the platform. If the app became very very popular, they could even threaten Apple to remove the application from the AppStore alltogether. Users wanting the service would have to switch to another phone.

Although it is a very unlikely scenario, it is not impossible in my view.

Re:Equally Bad Logic. (3, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173031)

How does having iPhone users receive calls via their Google Voice number affect the iPhone overall at all?

Apple walked into this market out of the blue and to get anywhere they had to make serious concessions to AT&T. Right now, Apple is getting ready to renegotiate, this time from a position of strength. Apple gets hardware sales from the iPhone and a strategic influence that can help their other products. So what do they have to offer phone companies in order to make the iPhone more functional and thus sell more handsets? Basically, they're offering to bring in new customers and get those customers to pay for services. Every service that is not used by iPhone users, weakens Apple's pitch to cellular phone service providers. So enabling users to bypass AT&T's SMS and thus AT&T's SMS revenue, may sell more iPhones to end users, but also makes AT&T and others less interested in selling iPhones and less likely to make concessions to Apple to get that to happen. Before the iPhone was a success all Apple had was promises and the offer of an exclusive deal where users would be banned from bypassing certain moneymaking services of the cell service provider. Even offering to cut out all other providers they had a hard time getting anyone on board willing to make a good package deal for service given that it needed network tweaks to make it work as nicely as Apple wanted.

Re:Equally Bad Logic. (2, Interesting)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173047)

In short, I don't think we've heard the real rationale

My first thought on the matter is that Apple has something similar up it's sleeve (to GVoice) and hasn't brought it to market yet.

Re:Equally Bad Logic. (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173145)

Maybe, but the problem is that the door is already open. I have all my calendars and contacts syncing now through Google (to the iPhone and the computer). There are some shortcomings like contact groups don't get transferred, but overall it works well enough now. I was hopeful that more and better integration would come, but this seems not to be the case.

I do this now (1)

alohatiger (313873) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173395)

On my iPhone my contacts and calendar entries all come from Google. They sync over the air. I even use a different calendar app because it syncs and displays better (CalenGoo).

But I have to use the browser to make a Google Voice call.

Apple's position on this is total BS. I think whoever gave Jobs his new liver was evil, and now Jobs is evil (or more evil than before?).

Count the layers of humor (1)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172885)

Just like Google is going into the OS business to make sure it gets never cut out, Apple is also building a huge datacenter to â" they guess â" take over some online cloud computing business of their own and be less dependent on Google for these services.

As Ned Ryerson, the Insurance Salesman from the movie "Groundhog Day" [imdb.com] famously exclaimed:

Bing [bing.com] Again!

Why is iphone different ? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29172907)

Apple does not "control the software" with respect to their laptops and desktops as Google and other companies provide email clients, web browsers, IM, calanders, contacts, etc. which compete with Apple's offerings. Apple seems to be doing just fine here and no one is raising a fuss about it. I would have liked to seen a discussion as to why the authors feel that the iphone so different from Apple's other platforms.

Its apple world baby! (2, Insightful)

shreshtha (1609099) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172915)

To feel apple you have to live in apple's world. I can foresee the future when you have to install a Apple(r) Software and logon to it to charge the battery of Apple gadget from any computer other than the registered ones. Its up to their discretion to allow the Apple Gadget to get charged from a non Mac Computer. Software Barricade.

Its phone? (4, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172925)

Apple doesn't want Google to take over a critical part of its phone.

Uh, I thought it was MY phone and I bloody well should be able to decide who takes over and how they do it. If the provider is not happy with what I send over it, that is another matter, because I RENT that. I BOUGHT the phone.

Have people become so ignorant that there is no difference in buying and renting anymore?

It is actually pretty simple. If you SELL something, the other person becomes the owner and it isn't YOURS anymore. Perhaps they should make a version of "mine" and "yours" like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H9MUWhU7Xw [youtube.com]

Re:Its phone? (1, Insightful)

mckinleyn (1288586) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173123)

Technically, it IS your phone to go jailbreak and do whatever the hell you want with. Even write your own app for Google Talk if you want it. Or you can make disgusted comments about the software the company chooses to provide. Either way, have fun.

Re:Its phone? (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173703)

In countries with DMCA and the like, is it clear that you really can legally jailbreak the iphone? Is there any precedent to indicate that the right to circumvent iphone protections is protected by the law when the phone is "yours"?

Re:Its phone? (2, Insightful)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173487)

Here we go again... uhhh, as much as I think Apple is evil for doing this, and as much as I agree that they should allow any and all software on the phone, your argument about it being allowed to do these things and equating that to being 'yours' is a bit odd.

For example, if standard PC software is restricted (misses a useful feature) because the developer wants you to pay a little more for the full price version with the feature enabled, you still 'own' both software, it's just that one is more restricted than the other - it doesn't make either version any less 'yours'.

To summarize, it being 'yours' has little bearing on how functional the phone is or how functional it should be.

Re:Its phone? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173829)

For example, if standard PC software is restricted (misses a useful feature) because the developer wants you to pay a little more for the full price version with the feature enabled, you still 'own' both software, it's just that one is more restricted than the other - it doesn't make either version any less 'yours'.

I should be able to ask a different developer. The original developer should have no say in to whether I want to buy features at him or somewhere else. The fact that locking in is very common does not mean it is a good idea.

Here's what they should do (4, Interesting)

eldridgea (1249582) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172937)

Here's what they should do:

Get with Google and make the iPhone completely run on Google Voice VoIP.

Make it carrier-agnostic (duh) and make it data-only.

The iPhone would become a data only device that would have VoIP built right into the device.

It would work an any network and could even change networks with impunity.

Also, it *should* be cheaper since you're not paying for tradition phone/voicemail/SMS.

Re:Here's what they should do (1)

Me! Me! 42 (1153289) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173083)

Sounds great but,
how does Apple
1.) control their own destiny? and
2.) make their margins doing that?

Re:Here's what they should do (1)

eldridgea (1249582) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173297)

I see your point, but at the moment they're equally tied to AT&T. This would make them truly carrier agnostic as well as being able to make a phone that uses a better service.

Phil Schiller was pretty irked at AT&T at the keynote this year.

I'm sure they'd love a way to stick it to them.

Re:Here's what they should do (1)

Me! Me! 42 (1153289) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173527)

Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying Apple always has a business plan (with lots of margin.) I don't really like the present one either (I want an iPhone, but will not get one in present situation.) I wanted Apple to be a disruptor in this space like they are in so many other spaces and your proposal is somewhat like what I had hoped for (get rid of the fricking carriers (as Steve said,"orifices," etc.) But Apple has partnered with them and just taken over profits from them -- no real beneficial disruption for us.
I want Apple to do more of a "Craig's List" number on them, but with better design and usability.
To do so they need a good plan with plenty of profit for them and more benefit for us. Meanwhile, I like my Apple stock.

Supplementing, not replacing (1)

StonyUK (173886) | more than 4 years ago | (#29172991)

I don't understand Apple's argument that this would replace core iPhone functionality. It doesn't replace it, it simply provides another way of making calls. The user won't be confused - after all, it was them who installed Google Voice in the first place. Both Skype and the actual "Phone" app both offer me a phone keypad to make calls with and I am not confused in the slightest about the meaning of both. It's like BT not allowing a landline customer to own a mobile phone because having two handsets might confuse...

Re:Supplementing, not replacing (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173121)

I don't understand Apple's argument that this would replace core iPhone functionality. It doesn't replace it, it simply provides another way of making calls.

Maybe Apple doesn't care that much (although I'd imagine that having Google anything on the phone must drive Jobs nuts) but AT&T's argument was that it would replace core AT&T profit centers?

Re:Supplementing, not replacing (1)

Stupendoussteve (891822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173329)

Largest "replacement" is multiple lines for SMS. Not really likely to confuse a user but SMS is a duplication of functionality. I really blame AT&T for that one though, they want those SMS charges.

All boats could be lifted... (3, Interesting)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173037)

I would think a rising tide lifts all boats: Apple says it's a hardware company, so they produce the best hardware and the best interface to said hardware (OSX and the iPhone variant), period. Make the hardware absolutely bulletproof, a dream to program for, and sit back and let the $$$ roll in.

If Google come up with software that allows me to make 60-way calls while also making toast and watering the garden, then there should be no reason for Apple to stop them; "we made the best hardware and the best interface to that hardware around. That's all we care about. Go for it!"

In other words, why is there a problem in the first place? Does Apple really make enough additional money in its contracts with at&t et al to justify meddling in software developers' affairs? I own a Mac, I run OS X, and it gives me everything I want to start with. They've done their job, so now I can install the software I want to use to actually get things done, and go about my business. Why does it have to be different with the iPhone?

I personally believe the app store is a great idea insofar as it's a single place to go for everything; it was a total nightmare to find JavaMe apps for my Razr and even worse trying to get them installed. That said, I also totally disagree with Apple's heavy-handed approach; if you don't want questionable apps, don't install them, and if they turn out to be not what they purported to be, then review them out of existence.

In other words, leave me the hell alone to make my own damn choices about apps I want to run. Let Google write whatever they want; if it works for me I'll use it. If it doesn't, I won't. But let me choose for myself.

Re:All boats could be lifted... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29173587)

If you want choice, don't buy apple. The writing has been on the wall for years exactly where the company is heading and what they think of customers. If you want bling over form to show buddies, keep sucking Job's cock and shut up.

Re:All boats could be lifted... (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 4 years ago | (#29174019)

Yeah, that would be great, and possibly wise in a world where nobody else was capable of being evil. Legend has it that IBM tried doing this very thing: Make hardware and let others do the software. I hear that didn't work out so well for them. By the time they realized their mistake and tried to take back the control of the software on their PCs, OS2 was too little, too late. They don't make personal computers anymore.

If Google elbows in and becomes a significant and familiar part of iphone usability, it puts Apple in a much weaker negotiating position. Like MS, who periodically threatened to stop making Office for the Mac, only to watch Apple squirm, beg and deal, Google too could paint Apple into a corner. I'm pretty sure that MS had the power to basically kill the Macintosh as a mainstream product if they yanked Office. Some people would complain, but almost all would just switch to Windows. If Google got iphone users to depend on their services and then yanked them, people would complain and switch to Android. That's why Apple needs to develop their own Google-like services while keeping Google from gaining too much of a toe-hold, by hook or by crook. For now, they can get away with it.

One more player in this scheme is AT&T, who is surely putting pressure on Apple to smother VoIP in any form. They bill minutes, roaming fees, stupid international rates, etc. People want Google Voice on the iphone because it will save them money, and that money, had it not been saved, would have all gone to AT&T.

Re:All boats could be lifted... (1)

suzerain (245705) | more than 4 years ago | (#29174203)

If Google come up with software that allows me to make 60-way calls while also making toast and watering the garden, then there should be no reason for Apple to stop them; "we made the best hardware and the best interface to that hardware around. That's all we care about. Go for it!"

In other words, why is there a problem in the first place? Does Apple really make enough additional money in its contracts with at&t et al to justify meddling in software developers' affairs?

There are so many angles to it it's hard to pin down, but it's interesting to speculate. I can think of two issues:

1. If Apple's indeed making money off the contracts, then I guess that makes them part-carrier, and therefore, not desirous of allowing things that undermine the potential profit from the call-making business.

2. Apple can't buy Google. If Google Voice completely takes over and blitzkriegs the whole voice calling industry, it could become like...say...the microwave oven. That thing that no one knew they needed, and then it came along., and now everyone "needs" one. (Honestly, I don't think that's far-fetched. About the only thing keeping VoIP from completely crushing the whole phone industry is call quality and anticompetitive practices from the entrenched players. Google's been spending years building up a network that's worldwide, that could actually handle this gracefully. I think Skype, Vonage and all the others are screwed, not to mention T-Mobile and At&T and Orange and all of them.) Anyway, the point is, if Google Voice becomes the microwave oven, Apple can't buy Google and take over the tech. Google will have something to hold over their heads in negotiations.

I think Apple has been attempting to preempt or delay these threats, but lying to the FCC is really not the most graceful way to go about it.

Apple needs to relent (0, Flamebait)

croddy (659025) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173583)

apple are very obviously engaging in illegal anticompetitive behavior here. i need them to relent on this and permit google to distribute this application, or i am going to flee immediately into the waiting arms of t-mobile the moment my contract is up. apple's management of the app store can only be described, honestly, as mentally ill.

Re:Apple needs to relent (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173819)

...apple are very obviously engaging in illegal anticompetitive behavior here.

I don't think that is clear at all. It is possible, but certainly not clear. What law is it you think Apple is breaking and how are they breaking it? What specific market has been undermined by this action?

So you're saying Apple is being anti-competitive and if they don't do what you as a customer wants, you'll patronize a competitor with your consumer dollars? Are you aware that "anticompetitive" is not a synonym for "bad"?

Re:Apple needs to relent (1)

croddy (659025) | more than 4 years ago | (#29174049)

this is clearly a play to prevent any competitor from offering the service-unifying technology Google is offering. the suspicious "duplication of functionality" clause on the EULA is practically an admission of this. taken together with the huge number of "approved" apps that do duplicate functionality shipped with the base OS, it's clear that Apple wants to pick and choose who is allowed to duplicate what functionality -- specifically, they will permit apps that violate this EULA clause only as long as they don't interfere with Apple/AT&T's ability to restrain trade. sure, AT&T Unified Messaging is not exactly the same thing as Google Voice, but you'd have to try pretty hard to convince yourself that this isn't a brazen attempt to protect that service against competition. these actions are federal felonies under the sherman act.

The real reason (2, Interesting)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173613)

The real reason Apple doesn't want another VOIP app is that it would have the potential to turn the iPod Touch into a viable competitor to their own iPhone.

Re:The real reason (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173907)

The real reason Apple doesn't want another VOIP app is that it would have the potential to turn the iPod Touch into a viable competitor to their own iPhone.

Cell phones that only work where you have wi-fi aren't much of a competitor.

WZ00T fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29173639)

God, let's Fucking [tux.org]? Are you I'll have offended to say there have which allows current core were was after a long

Company or Technology? (2, Interesting)

Halotron1 (1604209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173657)

Just strange that they let Yahoo control multiple features (Weather, stocks, search (you can opt for Yahoo instead of Google)) with no concerns for them taking over the device.
Plus Yahoo has apps for Y! Messenger, Y! Music, and another app that brings in quite a few other services.

Then on the phone technology, there's Fring which let you make calls through skype and bring in all your IM contacts, and TruPhone which I think also brings in skype and you can make soft phone calls over 3G.

Seems like their decision was based more on the corporation they were competing with than the technology conflicting on the iPhone.

Nobody (1)

Yaos (804128) | more than 4 years ago | (#29173759)

10 years from now people won't know what an IPhone is, because closed software phones won't exist.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...