Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Google, Apple Joust Over Rejected Voice App

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the somebody's-in-trouble dept.

Google 228

ZipK writes with an update to last month's FCC inquiry that landed Apple and AT&T in hot water over the apparent rejection of a Google Voice app for the iPhone. All three companies submitted statements to the FCC — Apple claimed the app hadn't been rejected at all, that they were simply "studying" it further. The public version of Google's statement contained a redacted section, which they politely referred to as "sensitive," but after seeing Apple's comments, they decided to reveal the entire document. Google's FCC filing directly contradicts what Apple said: "Apple's representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality." (PDF, page 4.) Apple quickly released a statement reiterating that they did not reject the app.

cancel ×

228 comments

WE ARE JOBS YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482253)

and humiliated to boot !! We Love You, Too !!

apple is gay (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482257)

it's offical. fuck you fanboi, MS 4evar!

Re:apple is gay (-1, Troll)

Jewbird (596227) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482755)

MS has the advantage that they respect their developers.

Re:apple is gay (-1, Troll)

Jewbird (596227) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482765)

MS also has the advantage of software that wasn't written by a retarded midget available for purchase.

The accepted and rejected it (1, Insightful)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482275)

Apple accepted the app, and then rejected it later, and asked that Google reimburse everyone who bought the app before that. I don't see how Apple could think that anyone would believe they accepted it, and then "studied" it, and refused any further purchases or updates, but didn't reject it.

Re:The accepted and rejected it (4, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482287)

More to the point, it's not as if they give it the benefit of the doubt and allow people to download the app while they 'study' it further. It is assumed guilty unless proven innocent. So there is no difference between what Apple calls 'studying' and rejection, given that they can always change their mind later.

Re:The accepted and rejected it (1)

maharb (1534501) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482679)

Pocket veto.

Re:The accepted and rejected it (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482347)

That was a third party app that Apple accepted and later rejected, not the official Google Voice one. The official-from-Google Google Voice app was never available on the app store.

Re:The accepted and rejected it (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482427)

Apple accepted the app, and then rejected it later, and asked that Google reimburse everyone who bought the app before that.

Now why exactly would Google need to do that? Apple fucked up, either by accepting it or by rejecting it later. They should reimburse their customers.

Re:The accepted and rejected it (1)

jeffasselin (566598) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482903)

Reimburse them for what?

Re:The accepted and rejected it (2, Insightful)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483173)

Apple accepted the app, and then rejected it later, and asked that Google reimburse everyone who bought the app before that

Wrong on both points. First of all, it was intended to be a free download. Secondly, it was never available in the App Store anyway so there was nothing to be reimbursed.

I'm not defending Apple on this--I think they're wrong as can be--but you need to get your facts straight before you make an inflammatory post.

Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Icy (1)

ad454 (325846) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482285)

Why doesn't Google immediately release Google Voice to Cydia/Icy? (Yes, I know that Google will release a web-only version of Google voice, but a built in version has the advantage that all of the GUI pages are permanently cached.) I would download and install it in an instant!

Apple has already shown bad faith towards Google in iTunes App Store, why should Google care if it hurts Apple's feeling but supporting App Store alternatives? Google already supports Mobile Terminal [google.com] Google code project for jail broken iPhones/iTouches, so the precedent is there.

Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482405)

Google already supports Mobile Terminal Google code project for jail broken iPhones/iTouches, so the precedent is there.

Just because an app is hosted on Google Code doesn't mean that Google officially supports or endorses it. Google Code is similar to Sourceforge: they accept virtually any and all projects that are licensed under an OSI-approved license.

Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (4, Insightful)

fooslacker (961470) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482457)

Why doesn't Google immediately release Google Voice to Cydia/Icy? (Yes, I know that Google will release a web-only version of Google voice, but a built in version has the advantage that all of the GUI pages are permanently cached.) I would download and install it in an instant!.

The short answer is because they're big and can afford to make a point. The long answer is that they likely see that the closed app store model is not good for them and other third-parties that are in competition with app store owners. Given that apple is currently the biggest and best app store if you make a point with them and set a legal/regulatory precedent with them they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open which is better for Google. My guess is that they believe this long-term advantage far outweighs the value of simply getting their app on the iPhone.

Or they could just be sticking it to Apple ;)

Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (5, Insightful)

arminw (717974) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483439)

....they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open....

Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.

Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483523)

To play devil's advocate here:

Because Apple locked down the iPhone so that you have to apply mods that break one of the many terms of service to access any store other than Apple's.

Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (2, Interesting)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483599)

Or... you could just buy an Android phone.

If you want to play in somebody else's playground/shopping mall, Apple isn't going to stop you.

Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (1)

fooslacker (961470) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483723)

....they can cause Apple and future app stores to be more open....

Why exactly should an online store be forced to carry merchandise that they don't want to, for whatever reason. That would be like legislating that brick-and-mortar stores are required by law to carry anybody's goods. A merchant and that includes Apple, doesn't have to give a reason to anybody why they will or will not not carry a particular item.

So first of all my post wasn't to say that it should be legislated that Apple open their app store. Please reread my post. My point was to answer the question why Google was going after them. From Google's standpoint it makes perfect sense to try and force open app stores.

Second to respond to your post...

Actually, your analogy is flawed. Not all merchants are equal. Private companies that do not rely on regulated equity markets for capital and companies that don't rely on regulated product markets (like telecoms) are not the same as public companies selling in a regulated market. You can't protect them through regulation and then call hands off free market at other times. Well I guess you can but it makes for a pretty non-competative business arena which is of course why all big companies try it when it suits them. Because Apple and AT&T are public companies that benefit from participating in a regulatory heavy, non-competative market as well as a regulatory heavy equity trading market in which they raise capital your analogy isn't really sound. Should they wish to compete in an open free market devoid of regulation I agree that they should be left alone.

Actually I don't really care what happens to them as I will just dump my iPhone for something else if it becomes too much of an issue for me but that is the other side of the argument.

Re:Still waiting for Google to release to Cydia/Ic (1)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483707)

While I'm no Randian market absolutist, this is one place where there is a healthy market right now. While I think you're right that Google is trying to get Apple to open the iPhone a little more, I think their strategy extends beyond trying to get the FCC to look sternly at Apple: As the iPhone represents an important market for their product, extending Google Voice it to Android [google.com] and Blackberry [google.com] first is part of their strategy to pressure Apple to ease up.

Google needs Apple to increase their mobile app install base, and ultimately Apple will need Google to keep up the iPhone's functional parity with the rest of the market.

Easy fix (5, Funny)

supernes (1560323) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482291)

Just remove the dialer and you're set, Google! You're the paragon of innovation, you'll find a way to, you know, call people without actually dialling them!

Re:Easy fix (1)

Plunky (929104) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482321)

Just remove the dialer and you're set, Google! You're the paragon of innovation, you'll find a way to, you know, call people without actually dialling them!

Of course, I haven't read TFA, but is that possible? I mean, have Google not integrated the app into the normal contacts list in any way? That would seem to be the best thing, if you could add a 'Google Voice' field to the contact database with the calling details, then just select that 'address' from the list when you want to call somebody via GV and have the call automatically routed through the 'Google Voice' caller.. does Apple have an API that would support all that?

Re:Easy fix (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482385)

Yes. Cell phones already have that functionality, whereby the initiating talks to the other expecting the other line to listen. You can easily skip the making the call part by leaving only voice messages.

I call it Instant Voice Messaging or IVM*.

*Patent Pending, ©Shikaku

Re:Easy fix (2, Interesting)

Plunky (929104) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482915)

No I think you mistunderstand. Apple are saying that the Google Voice application is not satisfactory because it duplicates the dialer. I'm taking that as meaning that the application has its own method for initiating calls but Apple would prefer that the application was more integrated with the usual iPhone method for initiating a call. I don't have an iPhone but I imagine there is a special swipe where it calls your mom. Well, if you add your moms 'Google Voice' calling details to her database entry rather than her 'PSTN' calling details and perform the special swipe, it should start the Google Voice application and call her using that. Making the user open a 'Google Voice' application before initiating a call is not the iPhone UI way.

(bear in mind that I've never even touched an iPhone :)

Reading the links above, it seems that Apple have passed the buck back with improvements requested and it is Google that decided to cease development and call it a rejection. Don't forget that this is not the Microsoft universe where any piece of shit is good enough, Apple are well used to rejecting software because the UI can be improved and its why the user experience is better with Apple.

Re:Easy fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29483309)

It doesn't replace the functionallity. It has ad dialer, but for another service, which redirects calls. Regardless of it using phone carrier network, it will still hit them, as it can reduce quantity of "native" calls to different networks as well as to international destinations.
Also, on jailbroken phones I hope it's tweakable for making VoIP for calls over carrier networks (making it also harder to do eavesdropping, expecially if google clients implement end-to-end encryption.

Re:Easy fix (3, Interesting)

Frankenshteen (1355339) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482811)

Yah - and the plethora of time-telling apps should all remove their clocks because that's redundant functionality too. Strongly encourage folks to ring Apple and demand release of the google version of voice. The web ui set as an app shortcut is at least a workable replacement, it doesn't come close to the functionality on display in the android version of the voice app.

Voice Apps (1)

c0d3r (156687) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482293)

Skype did this 1st, but thats eBay.

So apple wants control over their voice input output devices in prospective to 3/4G. Who owns the proxy to WiFI/Max?

Easy (5, Funny)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482303)

Apple: I'm sorry, but we don't want your voice app in our store, it threatens business.
Google: Oh yeah? We'll see how well you do without our maps.

Re:Easy (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482359)

Yahoo! just got an erection.

It wouldn't shock me if Apple put a framework in place for easy map switching, as they don't like to be tied down (see CPU switching).

Re:Easy (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482451)

Why the hell did I read that as "Yahoo! I just got an erection." ?

Re:Easy (3, Insightful)

arminw (717974) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483501)

....I'm sorry, but we don't want your voice app in our store,...

How is this different from Wal-Mart saying: "we don't want to carry your (you name it) in our store and we don't have to give you reason why." The App store is Apple's, and they shouldn't have to give a reason as to why they accept or reject a particular item any more than we would tell Wal-Mart they must do so, or any other store.

Stop buying crippled devices (4, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482365)

Really simple. No matter how "cool" (read how well marketed as cool) a device that won't run whatever software YOU choose for such artificial reasons as the manufacturer choosing to retain control isn't yours at all. Stop believing the marketing hype. Stop buying into this in droves or the future is nothing but a string of crippled devices. Mark my words. Next step will be devices that expire and refuse to work after a given date.

It's not cool just because it CAN run something if it WON'T run it no matter what some fuckwit in a turtle neck tells you. Think different means think like a fucking gullible sheep.

And this is coming from someone who loathes Google just as much as Apple. The Internet web 2 cloud computing buzzword age is ridden with little substance and lots of marketing doublespeak and the sickening thing is people are buying into it. Our world COULD be amazing in 20 years but I bet it's more restricted and more frustrating than ever.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482435)

Really simple. No matter how "cool" (read how well marketed as cool) a device that won't run whatever software YOU choose for such artificial reasons as the manufacturer choosing to retain control isn't yours at all.

Ever stopped and thought "if I have to explain to them why it isn't theirs, maybe something's wrong in my thesis". Look around you and think what of the infrastructure and ecosystem that enables you to do mundane things such as post on Slashdot are truly "yours". Still you use them as they provide utility for you. In some cases, part of the utility is that you don't have full control, so you can ruin it for everyone else.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482447)

Odds are he's using SlashDot from a platform he has complete control over. The 'internet overlords' are also unlikely to come down and remove his browser because it doesn't fit into their idea of usability.

Oh well, at the very least articles like this one are a good opportunity for people to burn off mod points, although generally in the form of 'troll' or flamebait.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (4, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482517)

Yes, but that is where standards come in to play.

Utilities are essential, but it is just as important that utilities are limited to providing the sorts of things that are natural monopolies - such as providing bandwidth. Vertical integration causes all kinds of competition problems.

If your DNS provider makes money off of registrations and isn't allowed to make it off of selling ads, then they have no incentive to redirect NXDOMAINs. If your bandwidth provider doesn't also sell VOIP or on-demand video, then they have no incentive to filter/deprioritize competitor's traffic.

It isn't just technology - look at the mess with dealer-servicing of cars. OEMs withold specifications (particularly around on-board diagnostics) to make life more difficult on competing repair shops.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482535)

How can your ruin everyone else's iPhones by installing software you want on your own?

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (4, Insightful)

mlscdi (1046868) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482475)

Next step will be devices that expire and refuse to work after a given date

That already exists. Ever tried to replace an iPod/iPhone battery? Sure, it's possible, but Apple make this as difficult as they can for you. I always have held the belief that iPods/iPhones are defective by design.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482583)

They're expensive too. What does the hard disk cost? You need a pretty simple computer which just needs to handle reading data from the disk, and play mp3s. I'm surprised there aren't more homebrew stuff around. I guess the fashion aspect is important - it's obviously really cool to pay an extra £50-100 for an Apple logo and the ability to plug in loads of third party crap.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (0, Troll)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482957)

How about a better example that has existed for much longer than an iPod - American cars. Cars used to be built to last. Most owners could conceivably own a vehicle until _they_ decided to replace it. Now, north American cars have a built in expiration date - pretty much as soon as the warranty runs out, the vehicle begins to systematically fall apart, thereby forcing the owner to buy a new vehicle.

I know it's fun to hate on Apple and all but, let's be real, north American auto makers have been working with planned obsolescence for a long time now.

Not to mention that Apple hardware lasts a HELL of a lot longer than a vast majority of comparable products from other companies. There are exceptions that prove the rule and anecdotal evidence that people can raise to the contrary but, on average, Apple's products last a respectably long time.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (2, Informative)

gander666 (723553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483207)

Wow, you must have a selective memory of cars from the 60's and early 70's. Those engines often needed rebuilds at or before 100K miles, and the mechanical point/condenser ignition systems needed unbelievably frequent tune ups or the performance started to go to hell in a hurry.

Cars today (including the US marques) are so much superior that it is not uncommon to go 30K miles before anything "tune-up" like is done to them, apart from periodic lubrication changes and air filter changes. Hell, the new Cadillac northstar engines can go 100K miles before you need to change the spark plugs.

Much of this improvement has come through the use of better manufacturing techniques (tighter tolerances, better materials, improved functional wear surfaces), but as important is a significantly improved level of knowledge of the systems that go into a powertrain, and much better control electronics.

I do remember my 1964 Nova wagon. Loved it, but it kept my weekends busy keeping it running (not too bad for a kid in his teens, but today, I do not want to spend my spare time working on my automobile.)

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (2, Informative)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483219)

Not to mention that Apple hardware lasts a HELL of a lot longer than a vast majority of comparable products from other companies.

No.

It doesn't last longer. On average, Apple products probably do takes longer to develop a fault than competing devices, but once a fault has developed, I would say it's less likely that you can get it fixed, and almost impossible that you'll be able to fix it yourself or get it fixed cheaply.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1, Troll)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483537)

You know, iPhones are known for exploding, flying away and stuff [blogspot.com] , so a mere battery dying out is nothing!

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1, Flamebait)

Karganeth (1017580) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482515)

The majority of people don't give a damn about being able to reprogram a device. People want things to be simple. Sure, you are an expert with computers and want to configure everything. It's just like how an engineer doesn't like to buy a whole car but instead buys the engine and the brakes and puts it all together (ok that was a terrible example). You wouldn't be able to put a car together - it would be of no use to you. A lack of choice in certain areas (eg in the app store) is often good - choice can be intimidating.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482585)

People don't want to be able to program a device, but that doesn't mean that they don't want their device to be programmable. To follow your car analogy, most people don't care if they can't fix their car, but they do care if their favourite mechanic can't. They do care if they have to go through the authorised dealer for servicing and parts, who charges 50% more than their competitors.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (-1, Troll)

maharb (1534501) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482737)

Although you think this is a great example, most aftermarket parts put on a car voids the very important warranty unless it is all authorized dealer parts and service. So in reality it is the same business model. Its a sort of quality control, protecting the user from possible bad experiences so that the company's name doesn't get tarnished. The majority like that the company is protecting them. Everyone else doesn't get it, they think that just because we have a free market that means that a company has to make their products open to tinker with and if they don't it's some crime. If you don't like the product, don't buy it, but don't be a hypocrite and buy the thing and then bitch because you THINK it should do more. Apple is open about rejecting apps, they aren't trying to trick devs/customers into thinking they can get any app accepted.

Why isn't anyone bitching at Microsoft for not letting any 3rd party apps on the Zune HD? Because no one even wants the device? There are countless examples of less open systems than Apples, get over it.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482825)

This isn't true. You are allowed to use aftermarket parts on your car. In order for the car company to void your warrenty it is up to THEM to prove your aftermarket part damaged the vechicle.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (4, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483095)

Its a sort of quality control, protecting the user from possible bad experiences so that the company's name doesn't get tarnished.

Let's hope the company's name gets tarnished enough by the numerous apps that consumers actually want, and developers want to write, but Apple won't approve.

The majority like that the company is protecting them.

Then let them have their app store, and throw up a little warning if I try to install apps through other channels -- downloading from a website, say. Users who really trust Apple to protect them can stick to the officially approved apps, and users who want to be more adventurous shouldn't have to jailbreak their phone.

Yes, we could buy other phones, and I intend to. But isn't it a bit insulting to realize you're essentially letting Apple protect you from yourself?

Everyone else doesn't get it, they think that just because we have a free market that means that a company has to make their products open to tinker with and if they don't it's some crime.

A lot of people seem to have this assumption that anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid ("doesn't get it") or evil.

No, I accept that the free market means that as long as the iPhone doesn't become a monopoly, they can pretty much do what they want. I'm a bit appalled that the free market is failing to correct such an obvious inefficiency, though.

But the fact that something is legal doesn't make it ok. It's entirely legal for me to link to goatse right here, but it would make me an ass, so I don't do it.

Why isn't anyone bitching at Microsoft for not letting any 3rd party apps on the Zune HD? Because no one even wants the device?

Most likely. But also because the iPhone has been available, and high profile, for awhile now. Zune HD apps of any kind weren't available till this point.

I don't really mind a device that's "crippled", but designed for a specific purpose, to be an appliance -- as others point out, if there's a Linux inside my TV to draw the menus, as much as it might be cool to hack it, I really don't care. My current cell phone is some cheap Motorola crap that can run Verizon-approved apps, and nothing else -- and I don't care, because I didn't buy it for the ability to run apps, I bought it for the ability to make phone calls -- and later discovered that it could take decent pictures, and play music, which is kind of a nice bonus.

I don't even have too much of a problem with game consoles, although I'd much prefer an open device, where homebrew games can be sold without going through a third party.

Where I have a problem is when something is sold as a general-purpose computing device -- and don't kid yourself, the iPhone is not sold as "just a phone", it's sold as "there's an app for that" -- and is then crippled. On top of that, you have Apple's seemingly random approval process...

I mean, take this:

Apple is open about rejecting apps, they aren't trying to trick devs/customers into thinking they can get any app accepted.

Developers, no. But customers aren't going to be much aware of this until it starts to bite them -- until there's an app they want, but can't have, because Apple has rejected it.

Again: It's sold as "There's an app for that." Not as "There might be an app for that, if we allow it."

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1)

Jared555 (874152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483247)

Going from the car analogy.... When it is under warranty have the dealer (apple in this case) do the work. When the warranty is over you still want SOMEONE to be able to work on it that is not going to charge you half the price of the product just to fix something small.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483551)

Although you think this is a great example, most aftermarket parts put on a car voids the very important warranty unless it is all authorized dealer parts and service.

The Magusson-Moss warranty act states otherwise. And the auto aftermarket was one of the reasons for the anti-tying provision.

Why isn't anyone bitching at Microsoft for not letting any 3rd party apps on the Zune HD? Because no one even wants the device?

That, and it's Microsoft. Everyone expects Microsoft to do the wrong thing.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482831)

Yet people continue to buy Volkswagen which is notorious for being incompatible.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482527)

And this is coming from someone who loathes Google just as much as Apple. The Internet web 2 cloud computing buzzword age is ridden with little substance and lots of marketing doublespeak and the sickening thing is people are buying into it. Our world COULD be amazing in 20 years but I bet it's more restricted and more frustrating than ever.

*cough*Microsoft Employee?*cough*

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (0, Troll)

webdog314 (960286) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482719)

How is this Score 5, Insightful? At best this is flamebait. Nothing you have said couldn't be applied to any phone marketed in the last decade. About the only difference between the iPhone and the past, is that A, the iphone costs more, and B, it's Apple, which despite your obvious hatred, DOES have a product that people seem to want. Fanboy or no, it's selling. Whether or not it's worth the money can NOT be answered by looking at it's engineering. You could ask the same question of a Corvette. If it's hot, it's hot. Most drivers (or iPhone owners) don't care about the engineering or infrastructure, they only want to know that their girlfriend looks hot laying on the hood (or holding it to their head).

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482721)

And this is coming from someone who loathes Google just as much as Apple.

As you command, Mr. Ballmer.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1)

Val314 (219766) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482849)

I get you point, but what if the device just does the things that i want it to do?
My TV has (at least I've read it in a forum) a Linux-based OS in there to do the menus.

But i can't install any arbitrary app that I want.

Is it crippled? maybe. But it does the thing that i want from it (watching TV) so its ok for me.

Same with my iPhone/Xbox/PS/... They do the things that i want them to do.

Would they be able to do even more? Yes! They could run any arbitrary application.
Do I need them to to so? No, they do the things they are supposed to do.
Would it be better if they were unlocked? Yes.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1)

indiechild (541156) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482977)

He probably thinks you're a dumb consumerist sheep as well (whereas he's a genius and paragon of virtue). That's why nobody takes these kinds of rants seriously. The original message of promoting openness and freedom is lost amidst the immature insults to anyone who doesn't share their extreme beliefs.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (2, Interesting)

Starayo (989319) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482887)

Show me a more open touchscreen device with as much ease of use that I can get for a price anywhere near comparable to this one (I pay AUD$49 a month inc handset payments) and I'll consider switching. People buy them for reasons other than "I'm a consumer whore".

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1, Informative)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483257)

Show me a more open touchscreen device with as much ease of use that I can get for a price anywhere near comparable to this one (I pay AUD$49 a month inc handset payments) and I'll consider switching.

Sure, no problem.

The Nokia N900 is going to be about the same price as an iPhone where I live. I have no idea about what it's going to be like locally to you, you know more about your local providers than I do (I only know of the phone company Telstra in Australia) so I'll leave that to you to find out.

It is a Completely opensource Linux platform, desktop applications can be in theory recompiled for it without little trouble. Nifty applications like OpenOffice.org have been ported to it [wikimedia.org] .

Here is a demo of the UI, since you seem to be focused on ease of use. [youtube.com]

Here is a spiffy ad showing off the UI. [youtube.com]

The only problems I am aware of is that the US version won't have MMS support. Additionally, j2me applications won't be supported (but regular Java applications are) until a later OS update.

Hope this information was some use to you.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483495)

It is a Completely opensource Linux platform

Not quite. There are a number (though small and growing smaller) of closed source packages for things like power management. Fortunately, there don't seem to be any closed modules for the kernel.

Also, I doubt the N900 will compete with the iPhone in terms of UI niceness, it very much seems to be a web-geek/linux-geek oriented phone and will get away with that fact by being so focused. The only thing that kept me away from the iPhone has been the lack of a physical keyboard.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1)

indiechild (541156) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482933)

Yeah, I bet you still use Google or Bing though. Admit it :p

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482959)

I was with you up to this point:

The Internet web 2 cloud computing buzzword age is ridden with little substance and lots of marketing doublespeak

I'll grant that this happens, a lot.

However, web apps and utility computing (two possible things "cloud computing" could mean) are a Good Thing, and they are here to stay. Indeed, like it or not, that's exactly what you used to post this comment, and it's exactly what you're using to read my reply -- if you really and truly don't want to buy into it, go back to newsgroups.

Where I have a problem is where people build yet another walled garden this way. I have no problem with Gmail, but then, Gmail is built entirely on interoperable open standards -- IMAP, SMTP, and Jabber. I do have a problem with Facebook, as you're pretty much funneled through the website -- they could have built it using things like XFN, RSS, OpenID, and SMTP (seriously, why would you implement a private messaging system, when you could just do email forwarding?) -- instead, they pretty much funnel you through their system to the point where some people would probably be happy with an Internet appliance that just did facebook.com.

And as others have pointed out, it's funny that you mentioned Google and Apple, but not Microsoft. Microsoft is part of the reason our world isn't as amazing as it could be right now. How long did IE hold back the web? How long will it continue to do so?

I will agree with this much, though:

Our world COULD be amazing in 20 years but I bet it's more restricted and more frustrating than ever.

But I refuse to just roll over and accept that. I run Linux, I refuse to have a Facebook account, and if I'm going to spend any significant amount of money on a phone, it'll be something hackable -- either Android or Maemo. Calling people "sheep" for choosing the popular choice doesn't work if you can't offer them an alternative.

I know -- back when the iPod was becoming popular, I often warned people away -- I'd point out that the iPod was twice as expensive as the competition, and half the features, and not really that much easier to use. People listened, and were quite receptive -- and asked me what the alternative was.

Re:Stop buying crippled devices (1)

Huge_UID (1089143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483505)

But what if it does what I want, does it well, and I enjoy using it? May I buy it then or am I a fucking gullible sheep? Must I buy your favorite techie toy that annoys the fuck out of me every time I touch it? Please answer soon, as my happiness depends on your approval. Oh wait, I sound like a sheeple...

More clarity required (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482373)

This is a real case of "he says she says...". We need more clear-cut evidence. Who is telling the truth?

Re:More clarity required (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482421)

This is a real case of "he says she says...". We need more clear-cut evidence. Who is telling the truth?

True. All we have are Google's and Apple's statements to the FCC. However, when Apple says they are "investigating an app" in the App Store, we have all seen that this effectively means that they have rejected it, but due to popularity, notoriety, or for various other reasons, they are not willing to come out and say "The app is rejected." The app will sit "in investigation" forever, effectively rejected without getting Apple's hands dirty.

OTOH, I suspect that Google may have an actual rejection letter. If they do, they should just post it as the egg on Apple's face would be priceless. :)

Re:More clarity required (2, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482579)

Google has not likely received any letter. The reason? Likely to maintain Apple's wriggle room in this situation. But according to Google's statements to the FCC, they were told explicitly and directly that their apps were rejected. It is therefore Google's official testimony from top executives that Apple has rejected the Google apps, not merely pulled them pending investigation.

Re:More clarity required (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482619)

Remember HyperCard? Steve Jobs said regarding rumors that HyperCard was being cancelled were "bulls--t". However, how many updates to HyperCard have come out of Apple? Honesty is not Apple's policy.

This is what really happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482379)

The opposite of accept is reject.

Re:This is what really happen (1)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483605)

The opposite of accept is reject.

The opposite of positive is negative.

However, your claim leaves out the zero. So to not accept is not the same as to reject.

As others have pointed out, (if zero is the pending state) it could pend indefinitely - even forever.

While the net result may seem the same to the consumer, I'm pressed to imagine Google wanting to move forward with the legal complaint: "Apple's decision is pending in an unfair fashion."

Pre has it (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482443)

Meanwhile, the Palm Pre has had Google Voice, first unofficially (as homebrew) and now as official (through the app catalog); and both free:

http://www.precentral.net/app-catalog-gets-google-voice-app-and-much-more [precentral.net]
http://www.precentral.net/homebrew-apps/gdial-pro-google-voice-app [precentral.net]

So... why is Sprint OK with Google Voice when AT&T is not?

Re:Pre has it (3, Insightful)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482463)

This looks closer to GV than google voice. Apple rejected GV also (after accepting it), but this is about a dispute between Google and Apple, and GV is a third party app.

The G1 also has both an un-official (in the app store, but non-google) and an official (by google) voice app. Both have annoyances and plusses, so I use them both (GV for SMS, and Google Voice for dialing and message checking).

Re:Pre has it (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483143)

And this is due to the fact that Google's appstore allows for any number of applications that duplicate a certain functionality, without being anal-retentive about it in the least - unlike Apple.

Re:Pre has it (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483223)

I'm most impressed that the app store even allows for apps that only run on rooted phones with custom firmware.

Re:Pre has it (2, Insightful)

swb (14022) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482987)

Because Sprint is a lame third place among cell carriers and they desperately need a "cool" phone that does something the iPhone doesn't?

Re:Pre has it (3, Interesting)

RedK (112790) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483001)

AT&T is fine with it. All of AT&T's blackberry customers get to use the Google Voice app on their phone without a problem.

Corporate Culture (4, Interesting)

billy8988 (1049032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482483)

According to this link,
http://www.businessinsider.com/did-apple-lie-about-rejecting-google-voice-iphone-app-2009-9 [businessinsider.com]

"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."

It is interesting that a VP of R&D is talking to a VP of Mumbo Jumbo. Does it tell their respective corporate culture?

 

Re:Corporate Culture (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482531)

It is interesting that a VP of R&D is talking to a VP of Mumbo Jumbo. Does it tell their respective corporate culture?

Apple sells a fucked-over, incredibly latency-enhanced version of an operating system first sold on 68k machines more than superficially similar to macintoshes (even used ADB) on which it was fairly responsive. They sell it to you on PC clones whose claims to fame are a pretty case, and the ability to mostly correctly run Apple's antique-but-revised operating system. Apple is marketing. You never hear about who designed an Apple motherboard, and you never will, but you often hear about who they've hired to produce a case. Google, on the other hand, is about software. They're going to make sure that the technical people are involved, because they want to get things done.

Re:Corporate Culture (2, Informative)

RedK (112790) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483103)

MacOS (the thing that used to be called System # and run on 68k machines) and Mac OS X aren't the same thing at all. Mac OS X is actually NeXTSTEP with a new display engine. It has nothing that was in the original and for a time, you had to run Mac OS 9 to get app compatibility. So while I see the point you're trying to make, you're mostly just trolling.

Re:Corporate Culture (-1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483393)

So while I see the point you're trying to make, you're mostly just trolling.

You don't see anything. NeXTStep ran on the NeXT machines which had 68030 and 68040 processors. I said nothing whatsoever about the classic Mac OS. But since you think you have something to contribute to this conversation, you jumped the gun and totally failed to read and understand my comment, which was written in relatively simple English. I explicitly pointed out that the machines were "more than superficially similar to macintoshes". The intelligent reader would infer that I was not talking about macintosh computers, and therefore must be talking about some other machine based on a 68k processor. You Apple fanboys must think that Apple is the only one to ever use a Motorola chip, but those of us who have more history than you and have used and/or owned MC68k-based NeXT, Sage, Sun, Apollo, Amiga, Atari, and yes, even Apple computers (among many others) know that you should just be quiet while the adults are talking. You might learn something.

Re:Corporate Culture (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483197)

Apple sells a fucked-over, incredibly latency-enhanced version of an operating system first sold on 68k machines more than superficially similar to macintoshes (even used ADB) on which it was fairly responsive. They sell it to you on PC clones whose claims to fame are a pretty case, and the ability to mostly correctly run Apple's antique-but-revised operating system.

If you want to bash Apple, do it right. OS X is not based on any m68k code. You could discuss about how OS X has poor POSIX compatibility (even though it has a Unix license - Just like Windows does with it's POSIX subsystem). You could talk about how the OpenGL support being broken, badly made drivers, hardware issues that to this day have not been resolved - including too much thermal paste on the processor or badly done soldering on their "logic boards".

But "latency-enhanced version of an operating system first sold on 68k machines"? That is complete rubbish.

Re:Corporate Culture (-1, Flamebait)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483367)

But "latency-enhanced version of an operating system first sold on 68k machines"? That is complete rubbish.

You're a big fucking idiot, since you apparently don't know that the NeXT machines were based on Motorola 68k processors, and won't look it up, but will try to tell me that I'm wrong. P.S. They took ADB keyboards and mice. That's two things you have no fucking clue about that you learned today. Asshole.

Apparently, the dipshits who moderated me Troll are also big fucking idiots, but that's no shock. Moderation is like jury duty. Only the very dedicated or the very stupid participate.

Please do not comment gain until you have some idea of what you are talking about.

Re:Corporate Culture (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482601)

Calling Schiller 'VP of Mumbo Jumbo' is disingenuous at best. He is basically the second in command at Apple; he's the one who takes over when Steve Jobs is on medical leave and is the one who is expected to be the new CEO when Jobs retires (or dies).

Really? Apple? (1)

PolarBearFire (1176791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482495)

I really don't care how Apple shoots itself in the foot regarding their AppStore. The way I see it, they pioneered the market but someone else (maybe Microsoft or Google) will rule the smartphone/PMP and downloadable application market soon enough. I give Apple a lot of credit for their vision and creativeness but they must think people are really stupid if they think anyone will believe that they _didn't_ reject the app. I applaud Apple's misguided efforts for quality control and attempt to maintain their revenue stream, I completely understand the reasons for them. However they should rethink a lot of the restrictions they have. Maybe it won't be soon but there will be an avalanche of new options available that will sideline Apple's offerings in the future.

Re:Really? Apple? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482573)

What market? There were mobile application stores since 2000, at least. Handmark [handmark.com] is one of them.

The only "market" Apple has pioneered with the iPhone is the multi-touch enabled smart-phone.

Re:Really? Apple? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482813)

The super fancy consumer phone market?

Though I would say RIM did that with their handset shaped phones (was it Curve?)

Re:Really? Apple? (1)

webdog314 (960286) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482751)

Right, because the iTunes store is SO dominated by music alternatives now...

Apple never invented anything, not once, never. (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483629)

Apple's genius is the 100% consumer glitter. but they have not invented even one new technology.

It took a stack of window over a starry sky before Mac users started using incremental back ups. But, by god, Apple's glitter effects have average computer users benefiting from this ancient technology.

By & large, consumer computer features follow the course : various developer's invent, Apple make it pretty & understandable, and Microsoft deploys it to the world.

By comparison, business features generally taken directly from inventors by Microsoft, who implements them incomprehensibly. But again the business world is happy since they pay for classes on finding the right buttons for the features they actually use.

Apple's lock-in & paranoia keep their computers off the office desk, but simplifies consumers' lives. I think Apple is basically happy selling "consumer electronics" over "business machines". I doubt they could realistically compete with Microsoft's "features for PHBs approach" anyway.

You know, the iPhone will makes a lovely video game platform, just don't use it if your office uses VoIP.

Why does google even play?? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482575)

Disable Google Map from the iPhone and see what happens...

Re:Why does google even play?? (1)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482733)

Maybe because Google's motto of "do no evil"?

Or maybe because Google cares about the end-user's happiness with their product?

But then.. a big corporation caring about the people who use their stuff.. doesn't seem very likely does it? :)

Follow the leader (5, Funny)

brownsteve (673529) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482599)

*sniff*
Oh, it's so cute. First they were just Baby Apple, playing nice with the other kiddies and corporations. Then they took their first steps - their first lock-in schemes, their first anticompetitive business practices. It was sooo adorable!

Now they just did the darndest thing - they're finally lying to government investigators. Awww. They're growing up to be just like their big brother Microsoft!

Practically speaking . . . (1)

jd142 (129673) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482615)

What is the difference between studying an application for several years and rejecting it outright? Years can be a lifetime for a software product. At what point does continually studying cross over into outright rejection? I'm sure Google's lawyers will be asking that same question.

Tell the FCC what you think (3, Informative)

adenied (120700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482705)

Instead of sitting around on Slashdot crying like a bunch of babies who can't open a bottle of milk, put your comments in the official record. Tell the FCC what you think. Maybe it won't have any impact, but at least your message will be out there for someone to potentially see. And who knows, if the public actually cares about this maybe the FCC will actually listen.

There isn't an official docket for this at the FCC yet. It's contained in a rule making proceeding, RM-11361. You can file comments into the official record here:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi [fcc.gov]

As usual, try to be civil. But let the FCC know what you think. Complaining on Slashdot won't do you any good.

Re:Tell the FCC what you think (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483043)

I think Apple and AT&T will change their stance really fast when the FTC and/or Justice Department hits them with an antitrust lawsuit in violation of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act.

It appears from "reading between the lines" that Apple and AT&T conspired to deliberately reject the Google Voice application for the iPhone, which is a major no-no under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Re:Tell the FCC what you think (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483151)

Instead of sitting around on Slashdot crying like a bunch of babies who can't open a bottle of milk, put your comments in the official record. Tell the FCC what you think.

I've let them know that I think Apple should be able to do what they want with their platform.

Cellphone platform monoculture (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29482707)

The iPhone platform monoculture is ripe for viruses and worms and Apple knows it. This is just another symptom of that (justified) paranoia. It is just a matter of time until the world is full of zombie iPhone botnets (complete with GPS location data images and sound.) iPhone botnets will be more powerful than any windows botnet in history.

Re:Cellphone platform monoculture (2, Funny)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483635)

Until they either explode or the battery fails ...

How Apple is going to go bankrupt (0, Troll)

Jewbird (596227) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482939)

Because they don't provide a commercial environment for software developers to flourish in, no one is going to learn to develop for their platforms anymore and then after that no one is going to buy them. This will happen about the same times Jobs dies due to remission of pancreatic cancer. It'll all happen within the next 10 years or so. Why? Because Krishna is offended by Apple's faggotry.

Forget Apple, here comes RIM (1)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | more than 4 years ago | (#29482989)

Seriously, one of the most appreciable applications (I don't even check my voicemail on my Cure 8900) is already a duplicated functionality on Google voice (Visual Voicemail, although I understand there's much more..) . Target the Blackberry business crowd. I've been patiently for my invite to try it, and I hear the new BB 3G gets visual voicemail anyway, the rest of the late adopters will have it.

Not to mention the awesome features which Apple/Rip/Nokia have yet to attempt yet.

I've seen this before (1)

Tiger_Storms (769548) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483181)

It's like when someone slaps you in the face later admitting the reason you have a black eye is because you failed to follow instructions rather than it being the person's fault who hit you. I don't care what why or how, but apple get the choice on whether or not they will let applications run on their iphone Google can complain all they want just like the hundreds of people who get rejected too in the end they've got their own phone to deal with.

From the Kings of Duplicated functionality! (2, Insightful)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483263)

These guys have some nerve, they have "borrowed" more hardware and software from other people than any other major computer manufacture, and all done with a wink and a nod to their fans (oh ya Intel sucks, huh Apple).

Would it not follow that FreeBSD should tell Apple that their OSx has "duplicated functionality" to gnome/KDE and ask them to remove it from the BSD OS they so graciously borrowed? Or perhaps the PC industry can politely ask Apple to quit putting their off white boxes around their damn hardware and slapping Apple stickers on them, because they are just "duplicated functionality" of a PC.

The argument: "because there are other applications that compete with our application you can't install them" is preposterous. Can you imagine if MS said you can only install IE now? Only Apple can get away with this because they have droves of lunatic fanatics (in the media and elsewhere) that would gladly throw their bodies on top of any critical message of Apple to try and drown out the sound of the growing number of critics of the absurd policies that Apple makes. What happened to equal protection under the law in this country? If MS did anything near this they would already be coughing up blood from the PR beating they would take, Apple doesn't even have a scratch. They contradict publicly filed FCC documents, and expect everyone to believe their insane argument of "duplicated functionality". Well guess what Apple, you have duplicated the functionality of a jackass and the jackass asks that you cease and desist immediately.

Seems pretty clear to me who killed it (1)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483331)

When an app offers free voice phone calling over a network infrastructure that makes its money by charging for the same thing, it's pretty clear to me who killed it. Apple only cares about killing something when it directly competes with its own product e.g. Mac clones.

Two evil companies fighting each other (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29483511)

Yawn. Nothing to see here. Google and Apple, two second-rate evil companies, fighting tooth and claw with each other to see who get to challenge the most evil company (Microsoft).

Gates and Ballmer must be laughing themselves silly.

Steve Jobs, the man who thinks that it's alright to knock up girls and not pay child support, is STILL selling the same old crap that he sold 20 years ago on NeXT computers with a 68030 processor and 8MB of RAM.

Apple's approval process is broken, period .... (4, Insightful)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 4 years ago | (#29483617)

For just one example of what they're been putting developers through, see this guy's blog/diary: http://www.roomsapp.mobi/Rooms/Blog/Eintrage/2009/9/14_Crazy_App_Update_Diary.html [roomsapp.mobi]

The fact is, I really like most things Apple builds, but it's never exactly been a secret that they're on the slow side executing a new idea or design.... Long-time Mac users practically all know about the advice to "avoid revision A products". If they promise a release date, chances are, they'll miss it. And look at the mess they made with MobileME at launch. Even iTunes needed a long time to evolve before they could offer their material for sale in many other countries.

The app store is going through similar "growing pains". Apple really underestimated the amount of work they created for themselves, trying to personally review each and every app submission to ensure it met their "standards" (despite not even having THOSE really set in stone). It's, by nature, a very subjective process - and one employee having a bad day could easily cause a rejection or long delay in a program's approval, over essentially nothing. Other times, someone could just make a simple mistake and ALLOW something really questionable, irritating everyone else who ever tried something similar and got rejected.... I think at some point, Apple is going to have to just start allowing EVERYTHING that meets certain automated code review standards, and deal with complaints AFTER the fact.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...