

Daring Fireball on Apple's Rejection of Google Voice Apps From App Store - w1ntermute
http://daringfireball.net/2009/07/google_voice

======
stanleydrew
_What if Google Voice were instead Microsoft Voice? And what if Windows Mobile
were as modern and competitive as Android? Would you be as surprised then that
Apple is discouraging iPhone owners from using the service?_

Apple is not "discouraging" iPhone owners from using the service. It is
outright preventing them.

And no, I wouldn't be surprised, just as I'm not surprised by this. I do feel
bad for iPhone owners, but as an Android owner with GV I can't say I'm not
enjoying this rare feeling of smug superiority.

~~~
Periodic
I'm probably going to be buying a smart phone in the next year. I'm finding
myself leaning more and more towards an Android phone as the applications at
least seem more open. I like a lot more control over my device than Apple
seems to want me to have.

As I recall though, you still can't get root on any of the Android phones
without trickery, right?

~~~
teilo
If you call it trickery to install a older version of the G1 firmware via a
raw system image (.nbh), and from there move to a more "enlightened" firmware.
It's really not that hard.

Not sure if anyone has achieved this on the HTC Hero or Magic, however, and
from what I have seen, there is much to like in the Hero.

------
nwjsmith
Now that Apple is rejecting apps from huge software companies (even business
partners in the case of Google), they're destroying the credibility of the
platform. The technology and tools they provide developers are first class,
but the increasingly erratic and anti-competitive app rejections will drive
away business interest.

I really hope Apple smartens up. They have a game-changing device, mobile OS,
and distribution platform, but their bullish business tactics are destroying
innovation.

~~~
metachor
In a way, I am glad that Apple is now rejecting apps from huge software
companies and their business partners.

In the near-term, you are right that this might create uncertainty for the
viability of businesses leveraging the platform. But nothing will hasten Apple
smartening up than having large companies with deep pockets clamoring for
change in the App store approval/rejection process.

------
georgekv
Gruber updated his post. It was AT&T all along.

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/07/28/att-app-store>

~~~
pgebhard
My earlier statements about the carriers still apply. They're just prolonging
the inevitable, which isn't so surprising. I think the fear that people will
be able to SMS for free is a big deal to them, though things like AIM on the
iPhone offer something similar, too.

As for the Voice revenue, we would still be using our minutes. I had just been
considering using GV on my iPhone (through the GV website), but I've now
realized that I would lose the benefit of free AT&T-AT&T calls since they
would all forwarded through my GV number.

------
zngtk4
Apple should be perfectly allowed to do this, but if they insist on continuing
with such behavior, you can be sure that when my contract is up for renewal,
an iPhone will not be my next device.

~~~
pgebhard
In many ways, it's unavoidable with any US carrier. The whole text messaging
racket just bothers me so much. It's such an abuse of the customer, and all of
the wireless companies seem to collude to keep those rates exorbitant. It also
bothers me that I can look overseas and see such low rates, which INCLUDE
tethering.

When will we finally reach a better wireless marketplace? Five years, I bet.
It's sad, too, because Google has really been trying to break up the death
grip of these carriers (spectrum auction, open-source mobile OS, Google
Voice), but they're up against multiple 1,000lb. gorillas.

~~~
symesc
In this regard (fighting the gorillas) I really respect Google for its
consistency: they're once again fighting for Net neutrality, this time
wireless networks and not just the (my) traditional definition of the
Internet.

I have an iPhone with 50 voice minutes and a 6GB data plan (I live in Canada).
Clearly I value data much more than voice. I understand why the carriers are
anxious about customers like me, but their business model has to change.

My 50 minutes cost $15/month. My 6GB cost $30. I have the voice because the
contract stipulates I must. Why I should be prohibited from using a portion of
data for voice remains a byproduct of history.

The VP of Credit Cards in any bank hates the VP of Debit Cards for eroding his
revenues (and thus his personal annual bonus).

The VP of Voice in any wireless carrier hates the VP of Data for similar
reasons.

The winner, of course, will be Google and any wireless carriers who structure
a business purely around data delivery.

~~~
pgebhard
Yikes, and I thought I had it bad. Only 50 minutes?! Granted, I only use about
half of my 450 (lowest you can go with AT&T).

I just wish the market would move more towards generic data access like an
ISP. Voice, SMS, wireless Internet...it's all just a data pipe to me (and
them), so charge me like an ISP (with speed and bandwidth caps, if necessary).

~~~
Periodic
I had 450 with AT&T. It cost $35/month or so (I can't remember the intro and
long-term rates). I'd gladly take 50 for only $15.

~~~
symesc
Yes, I took 50 because that's the least I could take.

Truth be told, I've constructed a plan I shouldn't have been sold. I should
have had to buck up more than the combined $45 plan that I'm on.

Rogers and Fido offer slight variations on the same theme: $60 and $75 plans
containing 250 minutes and up to 6GB of data . . . plus other overpriced
amenities like visual voicemail, texting, and caller ID.

I was able to purchase what I have because their systems don't actually
enforce their business rules. The iPhone is just another phone to the guy at
the kiosk in the mall. This may have changed since December 08, but I've kept
my paper copy of the contract :)

------
TrevorJ
Anyone who thinks this is about protecting the cell phone carriers needs to
explain why Fring and Skype are still in the App store. They are more robust
replacements for actual cellular service than GV is.

I disagree with the assertion that GV being bad for cell phone carriers means
it is bad for Apple.

Apple doesn't sell cell phone plans, they sell the hardware. How is it going
to hurt them if people buy the hardware and use GV? It won't. As long as
people need and want the device that Apple is selling, no matter what the use,
then Apple should be happy. All they are doing here is turning there backs on
a user base.

Anyone who

~~~
stanleydrew
The post at least claims that Apple gets an extra subsidy from cell carriers
based on expected revenues from voice and sms plans. So it could hurt Apple as
well.

You're right though that the Skype app is a bit of an anomaly in light of this
GV rejection.

~~~
TetOn
Skype is WiFi only...perhaps GV will ultimately appear as a similarly limited
app (thus protecting the frequently mentioned voice and SMS revenue, at least
temporarily).

~~~
jrockway
Google Voice is not a VoIP client, so I'm not sure what there is to limit.

------
sant0sk1
No matter reading this and analyzing it, turns out it was AT&T:

<http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/07/28/att-app-store>

------
yumraj
_What if Google Voice were instead Microsoft Voice? And what if Windows Mobile
were as modern and competitive as Android? Would you be as surprised then that
Apple is discouraging iPhone owners from using the service?_

This is a BS argument. It's the same as saying that MS has every right to
block iTunes, Firefox, Netscape, Safari (and every other product that competes
with a MS product) from installing on Windows.

Imagine where Windows would have been, and Mac OSX for that matter, if the
only products that were allowed on PCs, and Macs, were the ones which didn't
compete with the OS vendor's products.

And BTW, the fact that GV is available on Blackberry etc. tells me with no
doubt that AT&T had absolutely nothing to do with this.

------
noelchurchill
Alright, then Apple, can you please provide a comparable service to GV??

------
RyanMcGreal
_Don’t think about it in terms of Apple’s relationship with its carrier
partners, but instead think about it in terms of Apple’s competition with
Google._

I rather find myself thinking about in terms of Apple's irresistible anti-
competitive urges.

------
jrockway
It's important to keep in mind that this doesn't prevent you from using Google
Voice. You can call your Google Voice number, or you can issue an HTTP request
and Google Voice will call you. As long as you can make phone calls, you can
use GV. As long as you can use the web, you can have all the advanced
features.

So really, Apple and AT&T aren't stopping anyone. (I am happily using the
Android GV app on my AT&T phone. Turns out you can reboot their locked Windows
Mobile devices into Android. Hah!)

------
robotron
Anti-competitive behavior. Just sayin'.

------
jpcx01
Gruber is a tool.

