Submitted by Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice iPhone application and the removal of 3rd party clients proved to be the last straw, and now the Federal Communications Commission is involved. The FCC has begun an investigation into the matter. “The Federal Communications Commission has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said, “Recent news reports raise questions about practices in the mobile marketplace.”
The Google Voice applications were all pulled from the App Store earlier this week, with Apple citing its usual bogus reason that it duplicated functionality. While Apple remains mute on the issue, the legions of iPhone users were quick to point the finger at AT&T, but they later denied any involvement, claiming they have no power over the App Store.
The FCC isn’t buying all this, and has started an investigation into the matter. They sent a letter to each of the three companies involved (Apple, AT&T, and Google) in which they ask for various clarifications. The companies must answer the various questions before August 21.
From Apple, the FCC would like to know why the Google Voice applications were removed, why Google’s own client was rejected from the App Store, and whether or not any other related applications were removed. In addition, the FCC would like contact information for the involved developers. They’re also interested in any differences between Google Voice and other VoIP applications that did get approved for the App Store.
They also want to know if Apple did this in consultation with AT&T, or whether they acted alone. On a more general note, they also want to know if AT&T has any influence in the App Store approval process, whether in general or for specific applications.
But this isn’t all. The FCC is also interested in the App Store beyond just the Google Voice issue. The FCC wants to know the criteria for App Store rejection, the details of the submission process, the amount of rejected applications, a list of those applications, and so on.
From Google, the FCC wants a description of the rejected official client, and what reasoning Apple gave to Google for the rejection (if any). They’re also interested in any other possible Google applications that did make their way into the App Store. Android also comes into play, as the FCC wants to know the details about Adroid’s approval process.
When it comes to AT&T, there’s a lot of overlap with the letter to Apple, but there are also additional questions about any possible agreements between AT&T and Apple regarding the use of the 3G network. The FCC is also interested in any contractual limitations on network usage in customer contracts. Another important item is whether or not Google Voice is allowed on other handsets on AT&T’s network.
It’s funny how Google’s very own Eric Schmidt more or less predicted this mess back in 2007 when he wrote to the FCC, asking them to implement open standards that would give users the freedom to use whatever application on whatever device on whatever network.
I’m glad the government is finally stepping in and doing something about this, even if it is just a letter at this point.
This sort of anti-competitive behavior on the part of Apple/AT&T has gone far enough.
Edited 2009-08-01 11:31 UTC
While I agree with your comment and cheer it I must say some part of me doesn’t agree. Is it really needed to goverment to take part in this? I mean shouldn’t people just not buy iPhone and instead buy alternatives mobile phones. Open standards are good but forcing companies to use them isn’t. People should use they voice by buying products that support open standards. Keep mind it’s Apples own App Store, it’s Apples rules and it’s Apples phone, so don’t like to rules get out the ride and go ride some other rollercoster. I could understand why Google is whinning if iPhone had monopoly but it doesn’t so shut up.
The government allocates the bandwidth AT&T is permitted to use, so yes. lern2government
The government allocates the bandwidth AT&T is permitted to use, so yes. lern2government
The goverment did not allocate the bandwidth to AT&T. AT&T and other carriers bought the specturm allocated for cellular service in an auction. The goverment collected large amounts of money for it as well – carriers issued bonds for Billions of $$$ to pay for this.
Actually, the goverment also sold a slice of spectrum that would enable all devices and applications to be utilized – a dumb pipe – in the last auction. This is the one Google up’d the bid to the minimum and then simply sat on the sidelines.
Edited 2009-08-02 18:46 UTC
It’s ironic that Apples interest in keeping brand is what’s doing the brand image the most damage at the moment.
I admire the hard work they’ve done in developing the brand as far as they have in the last 10 years, but they no longer have the luxary to play dirty like they once had.
Hopefully they’ll wake up to the fact that the latest trend is about openness (not as in source, but in the more general sense).
Google know this. heck, even MS have come to realise this (even if their approach is still only one shade away from their old business model)
In short, if Apple want to keep their image clean and white, then they’re going to have to start cooperating with their customers (both consumers and developers) instead of enslaving them with proprietary lock-ins, “illegal” EULAs, app dictatorship and law suites against those who dare publish documents online that Apple don’t authorise.
Apple’s brand is not being damaged. Having the FCC show up and force AT&T to let Apple license it’s phone to other Telecommunications Carriers only helps Apple.
Tyrione, you are *so* fortunate. Professional baseball pitchers practice for *years* without producing half the spin that you do on a regular basis.
Your assumptions the blame lyes with AT&T are yet to be proven.
Besides, it’s not as if Apple don’t have a history of screwing their 3rd party iPhone developers.
So lets wait and see the outcome of the FCCs investigation before casting the first stone.
Wait what??
Apple can deal with whoever they want to. They developed the phone and chose to only allow AT&T to have it. This was Apple’s choice, not AT&T’s.
Apple’s brand is not being damaged. Having the FCC show up and force AT&T to let Apple license it’s phone to other Telecommunications Carriers only helps Apple.
Apple holds all right to the iPhone, they decide which carriers to work with. AT&T has no say in that. Apple themselves decided to make an exclusive deal with them.
That is not looking at the whole picture. Apple did in fact approach several telecom companies to deploy their phone with but these telecom wanted more control than what Apple was willing to give. AT&T agreed to what Apple was asking. So yes Apple did choose AT&T as their carrier but only because AT&T was the only ones at the time willing to do what Apple needed for their phone. Had Apple not fought for what they wanted the iPhone would be just another run of the mill phone with carrier branded crap all over the place, and Apple woudl hve little control over the device. Verizon for example would not give Apple what they wnated and frankly I think Apple was the better for it because they are not tied down to a standard that is only locked down to oe region. Using GSM gives them global access.
Because Apple considers themselves a hardware company they put more value on the device than the service. A Carriers main purpose is to provide wireless service so they put more importance on the service side of things and place the actual device as a second citizen. Clearly when the device is done right that is the wrong approach. Many users switched to AT&T just because of the iPhone (I’m one of them). Those who hve switched usually agree that AT&T’s service is pretty damn bad, but having an iPhone in their minds offsets the bad phone service.
It was the arrogance of the other carriers thay made Apple go with the up and coming cngular (now AT&T).The situation has changed since the iphoen was first released and Apple is the one holding all the cards with every other carrier hoping they can get a piece of the Apple pie (no pun intended).
Ok, I have to ask this then. AT&T is bad in my area as well, hardly any reception. While I like the iPhone as a device (though not all of Apple’s policies such as those with the app store) why would I switch to a service where I get poor phone reception just to have the iPhone? I mean, it’s called an iPhone and I want to use it as a phone… and with AT&T’s bad service, I wouldn’t really be able to do so. So how would having the iPhone offset that? I’m curious. But then again I’ve yet to see any carrier with good service almost everywhere at least in the U.S, each carrier seems to have their little regions where they’re strong and if you’re out of those regions you’re basically screwed. If there is any such thing as regional monopolies, the cel providers have them here.
Go, FCC, go!
Imagine if this was Microsoft. All the fines and penalties they would have gotten by the EU.
Edited 2009-08-01 11:55 UTC
I see what you’re trying to do, but you can’t really compare the two like you have:
Microsoft got fined by the EU for abuse of their dominant position where as Apple are being investigated for anti-competitive behaviour on a much smaller market share.
Though the cases might sound similar, Apple/iPhone don’t have a dominant position (people can still buy other mobile handsets and Apple can’t use their market share to stop people from doing so).
Edited 2009-08-01 12:33 UTC
I really hate this “dominant position” and “It’s not a monopoly” bullshit… Because if it’s improper for a group to exhibit a behavior or practice, it should be improper for EVERYONE to exhibit the behavior or practice.
Otherwise you have nothing but petty favoritism – might as well bring back aristocracy at that point… Though in these cases it’s aristocracy in reverse.
Edited 2009-08-01 13:50 UTC
Nice fantasy. It calls to mind the innocence and naivete’ of the laws of Camelot. Of course, it didn’t turn out so great for poor Guenevere, victim of a too simplictic legal system…
As I don’t feel like typing all this out again today, I’ll just link:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?375280
Edited 2009-08-01 14:10 UTC
I didn’t say it wasn’t improper behaviour for Apple.
I was just explaining why the EU haven’t stepped in.
All you’ve done there is take my post out of context.
No , Microsoft got fined for breaking the EU laws , repeatitively and their repeatitive >> ciminal << activities that they kept doing. Their market share had little to do with their convictions.
– Their stealing of IP of others , that the court found them guilty of.
– Their breaking of other softwares by design, that again the court found them guilty of.
– Their illegal collusion that eliminated competition in many ways , that the court found them guilty of.
– Their Fraudulent tactics and illegal libel and slander that Microsoft was found of.
The other part you people forget is that it’s the US justice system that started the Microsoft investigations worldwide.
They where found guilty by the US court of antitrust and Monopoly practice in the US and of many criminal activities in the US. The problem is in the USofA , the criminal corporation can get away with murder and even do it got many States and the US government after it , the cost of the procedure was so costly and the problem so complex that the Republican government tought it was better to settle as ordered by the Republican President.
Actually it was not a bad idea in itself if your Etats-Unians politicians , because Microsoft is similar to oil for the Arabs in the US , because also unlike their EU laws counterparts there is no repeatitive measure put in the USofA laws against corporation that break the laws repeatitively , civil and criminal , so the burden of explaining why so much money was put on suing what all the other US corporation do on a daily basis without any change to the US justice system would have been pure political suicide.
One last point the first landmark Antitrust cases was against AT&T …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT&T
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_Divestiture#Evolution_of_t…
Microsoft got fined by the EU for abuse of their dominant position where as Apple are being investigated for anti-competitive behaviour on a much smaller market share.
And Apple’s isn’t abusing their position by rejecting applications?
Edited 2009-08-01 21:32 UTC
What percentage of the cellphone market does Apple have? Smartphone market?
Did MS have a large market share when they first started?
Edited 2009-08-02 02:48 UTC
That’s besides the point because they do NOW and DID have when they were taken to court by the EU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Market_share_of_mobile_os_s_2008….
AND
http://jkontherun.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/4q08-smartphone-marke…
Edited 2009-08-02 04:02 UTC
I have nothing to say and will not argue (I disagree with your logic though).
Edited 2009-08-02 05:47 UTC
I knew the App Store was going to draw complaints, and I called it back in March.
http://firsttube.com/read/sue-i-say-youll-see-it-soon/
But I didn’t realize it would be the Feds doing the legwork! Go FCC!
It’s nice to see the U.S. finally taking some action on behalf of consumers after 8 long years of laissez-faire. It’s a sad commentary that Americans have had to look to Europe for help where our own government had failed us utterly. I would encourage the EC, as well, to take a closer look into Apple’s activities.
The App Store was a disaster waiting to happen given Apple’s practices with it. I expect that the EC will look into it if the FCC interest doesn’t spark an about-face.
I love my iPhone. But, I don’t love artificial barriers and contrived limitations. I’m glad to see the FCC get involved.
Regardless of whether I like Apple or not, I have to admit that even with *ALL* of the shortcomings, it’s still the best thing going. It’s still a joy to use. And, I still feel like I’m walking around with a computer in my pocket. I have so much at fingertips. The phone is outstanding.
Edited 2009-08-01 18:02 UTC
Even if the Apple products are cool or good, consumers should boycott its products because of the abusive pratices and rights restriction.
I don’t understand why Apple is so strong in America when americans think that they are the most demanding and discerning consumers of the world.
I never will buy an apple product while the company remains arbitrary and choosing what software and hardware I can put inside its products.
Did not the consumers and developers know this ahead of time. They knew this was going to happen. When the customer bought the iPhone they know they were buying an Apple device. Did they bother to read the EULA? They can install only applications on the App store. If not there get another phone.
As for the developers, they too signed a “contract” when they chose to be an iPhone app developer. they gave up their rights to Apple and let them decide its fate. Did Apple not make it clear that any App that competes with Apple software will be rejected. What the did Google expect when they put their own dialer into their app? This is what Apple is going to point to to the FCC – Google agreed to this and that is what was applied here.
As for Google, all of this is another one of their Free-Loading attempts. It will be interesting to see if the FCC will force Android to have the capability to default to Bing or Ask search instead of Google?
I don’t have an iPhone and don’t want one, but this just slaps in the face of market economics. Apple spent billions to develop this product and they have the right to deploy it as they please. If consumers want the Google App that badly, they will make the switch to a device that supports it and the market will determine the output.
Google should have put their money where their mouth is. Early last year Google could have bought the spectrum to run their own open network (which I would ahve loved), instead they just bid up the price to the minimum value and bailed out. They don’t want to make any of the capital investment.
As for Google, all of this is another one of their Free-Loading attempts. It will be interesting to see if the FCC will force Android to have the capability to default to Bing or Ask search instead of Google?
Not really. You either missed intentionally or by accident the fact that ALL Google Voice clients, both the official and all the unofficial ones, are rejected by Apple. Yet Skype and similar applications are allowed. So how does that make it fair? Or how does that make it a free-loading attempt? Do explain.
What the did Google expect when they put their own dialer into their app? This is what Apple is going to point to to the FCC – Google agreed to this and that is what was applied here.
As said, Skype and other applications are allowed. They “duplicate” functionality just as much as Google Voice does
Not really. You either missed intentionally or by accident the fact that ALL Google Voice clients, both the official and all the unofficial ones, are rejected by Apple. Yet Skype and similar applications are allowed. So how does that make it fair? Or how does that make it a free-loading attempt? Do explain.
Skype maintains its own contact list and only a VoIP dialer. Google app can access the phones contact list and can replace the GSM dialer.
According to Skype:
“Call phones and mobiles from your iPhone contacts at great rates^A^1.”
That is from the Skype page. It looks like Skype can access the iPhone’s contacts as well.