“Apple’s rejection of the Google Voice app for the iPhone went all the way to the top – the bad news was personally delivered to Google by none other than Apple’s Senior VP of Worldwide Product Marketing, Phil Schiller. New details of the controversial decision came to light today when the FCC released an unredacted version of Google’s own confidential letter to the agency. Google replied to a set of FCC questions about the Google Voice app rejection on August 21, but requested that the letter be kept private due to the ‘sensitive nature of commercial discussion’. Interested parties immediately filed Freedom of Information Act requests to get at the juicy tidbits that might be found in such a letter; rather than fight the request, Google waived its confidentiality.”
Apple told the FCC last month that it had not rejected the Google Voice for iPhone app. Instead, Apple said it is still studying the app and hasn’t yet made a decision whether to approve or reject the app.
it would seem that somebody is lying or the news is being sensationalized.
I’m guessing that it was more of Phil saying,”Your product duplicates some of our core functionality and that’s something we’d like to avoid…so it’s not looking likely we would approve it…but to be honest…our engineers are still studying it.”
Which Google took to mean that it was formally rejected. That’s not the case. Is there some federally mandated period of review for iphone apps? Is there a legal precedent for a “reasonable period of time” for approval?
No…there isn’t.
And Google does not have in it’s possession a formal rejection from Apple. They are just trying to turn up the heat by this kind of public disclosure.
Apple (or any cell-phone platform provider for that matter) should be able to reject or accept ANY application submitted. The only person they should have to answer to is the public, and at times they have changed course due to public pressure.
They are an independent commercial business and they have the right to control what goes in the AppStore. If people don’t like it, they can complain to Apple or else boycott buying the iPhone and AppStore apps. Its as simple as that.
There are other cell phones, other computer makers, and other mobile platforms out there. Apple may (debatably) have the best one, but that does not mean they should be under pressure to accept apps per the FCC.
Edited 2009-09-18 18:03 UTC
The problem is it’s hard to boycott the iPhone when you recently locked yourself into a 2 year contract with AT&T.
And then if in fact we eventually learn that Apple did reject it then you can complain.
I don’t understand how Apple gets to play gatekeeper with what software I can install on my device.
In a perfect world, the AppStore would me the main distribution method for installing software on an iPhone, at the some time however anyone is able to download an independent app and install it thus bypassing the AppStore. Maybe add a security warning, maybe forcing the user to accept full responsibility.
That is a common misconception – that you own an Apple device. They are just letting you use it. And if I were you, I wouldn’t complain too loudly, or they just might take it back. Remember, to Apple is a privilege.
I apologize.
So apple is merely selling a revocable license rather than a product? Imagine the shitstorm that will cause if it was true.
Its’ the same thing with their software right? Sure, you can buy OSX, but they get to dictate what hardware you install it on. This is pretty much the same thing.
On the other hand, when’s the last time you bought a game console/handheld (other than the GP2x) where you could install anything you wanted? It’s been that way forever, yet people never bitch about that.
Edited 2009-09-20 00:12 UTC
Actually, consoles are a good example – you could install Linux on your PS2 or Gamecube without much concern. Sony even provided a kit for installing Linux. On the other hand, Microsoft tried everything in its power to prevent you from using Linux on the XBox. Great pains were taken to keep unauthorized software from being installed.
Good example!
Yeah, bur IRIC, the Linux you can install on the PS3 is crippled, as in you don’t get direct access to the GPU APIs. So, it’s *kinda* open in that way
Edited 2009-09-21 17:41 UTC
Quite easily. “We know what you want, you don’t; we’re cool and hip, and if you don’t like it, go f yourself.”
That’s been apple’s mantra since an OS fit on a floppy.
That made me laugh .. couldn’t have put it better myself
I think this may be getting reviewed with a microscope by the FTC because the phone is on at&t’s network. There was a company by a similar name that they ended up breaking up because it was abusing its monopoly. They later approved a merger between the same company and parts of the old company they had originally split off. It only makes sense to me that they would want to check in to see what the effects of having a Large company named at&t would have on competition in various sectors.
^aEURc Google’s letter to the FCC (.pdf) http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases/9182009_Google_Filing_iPhone.pdf“ here.
^aEURc Apple’s letter to the FCC http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/“ here.
^aEURc AT&T’s letter to the FCC (.pdf) http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/att-respon… here.
Wow. Google’s private communications used in a way they didn’t desire. That’s just too rich.