
Google strikes back at Apple, releases new Google Voice for iPhone - abennett
http://www.itworld.com/internet/94104/google-strikes-back-apple-releases-new-google-voice-iphone
======
GHFigs
"Strikes back?" I don't think anybody at Apple is going to be upset by this,
given that they publicly recommended it: _Google is of course free to provide
Google Voice on the iPhone as a web application through Apple’s Safari
browser, just as they do for desktop PCs, or to provide its “Google-branded”
user experience on other phones, including Android-based phones, and let
consumers make their choices._ \-- <http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-
answers-fcc-questions/>

~~~
jkincaid
I think Google is "striking back" in the sense that it's planting the Google
Voice 'seed' while Apple probably wants to keep it off the iPhone entirely. If
each company had an internal monologue, I think it would go something like
this:

Apple: "We don't want Google Voice on the iPhone, period. But we'll publicly
tell Google they're fine to put it on as a handicapped web app, because we
couldn't stop that anyway, and it makes us look like we don't have anything
against it. But we do. We are worried that Google will convert the iPhone into
a shell for its own products, which is why we're talking to other search
engines and are (probably) building our own Maps app."

Google: "Fine. We'll build a web app, and it will be sort of shitty. But we'll
keep updating it with the latest HTML5 tricks and make it pretty damn good for
a web app — far better than most other companies could do anyway. We're going
to release Google Voice to the public later this year, and iPhone users will
be able to try it for themselves with the web app. When they find out that the
experience would be even better if Apple would approve our native app, maybe
we'll see a grassroots movement. Maybe not. Either way, we're keeping our best
native apps on Android."

To anyone who thinks that Apple is worried about the user experience and
reproducing core functionality, that's all misdirection. There are plenty of
applications that similarly reproduce some of the iPhone's core functionality.
There are a few apps that do EXACTLY what Google Voice does, but are targeted
at a different market. Apple is trying to keep its control over the iPhone for
competitive reasons, not because they're worried about user confusion.

~~~
GHFigs
A more convincing argument could be made by citing facts.

~~~
jkincaid
Neither Apple nor Google will ever comment about this on the record. You have
to look at what has happened and read between the lines.

~~~
GHFigs
_Neither Apple nor Google will ever comment about this on the record._

They both _did_ , in response to an FCC inquiry. Your theory depends on both
companies not just lying but lying to the government and lying to the
government in a very peculiar way that doesn't actually give either of them
any kind of advantage over telling the truth.

~~~
jkincaid
Go back and read Apple's response to the FCC. It may not have any outright
lies, but there's plenty of stuff in there that is questionable. They say some
things that are factually incorrect about the way Google Voice works, and they
try to claim that they don't fully understand the service. If you buy that, so
be it. I don't.

~~~
stanleydrew
Agreed. I hate to say it, but TechCrunch had some of the best coverage at the
time of the FCC statements. A pretty good overview of the statements is here:
[http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/18/google-reveals-full-
fcc...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/18/google-reveals-full-fcc-response-
directly-contradicts-apple-on-google-voice-rejection/)

~~~
GHFigs
_There are countless apps on the App Store that “duplicate” the iPhone’s
functionality in some form, and the notion that users might get confused about
the apps is ridiculous too — after all, users have to manually install these
apps._

This is not very insightful. Apple obviously did not reject the application
based on what is shares in common with applications it didn't reject. So why
not actually examine the differences? Moreover, why not examine the
differences as referenced by Apple concerning their own actions?

For instance, Apple's claim that: "The Google Voice application replaces
Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice
telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being
stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail."

Is this true? Are there other, accepted applications that do this? Does this
constitute a duplication of functionality that may confuse users?

TechCrunch doesn't appear to have even attempted to answer any of these
questions.

~~~
stanleydrew
Google voice only handles your voicemail if you explicitly set it up through
the google voice settings interface. It involves dialing a special number from
your phone that google gives you. And if I recall correctly Mike Arrington did
explain this in at least one of the posts covering the whole fiasco.

~~~
GHFigs
_Google voice only handles your voicemail if you explicitly set it up through
the google voice settings interface._

So rather than being a "blatant lie", it is actually true. That's kind of my
point.

~~~
jkincaid
Read this: [http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/the-simple-truth-
whats-...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/the-simple-truth-whats-really-
going-on-with-apple-google-att-and-the-fcc/)

We also wrote quite a few other stories about the situation that you should be
able to pull up using the Google query below. For more on applications that
are similar to Google Voice, check out the stories on Line2.

[http://www.google.com/search?&ie=UTF-8&q=Google+Voic...](http://www.google.com/search?&ie=UTF-8&q=Google+Voice+Apple+site:techcrunch.com)

------
ErrantX
Typical itworld bait headline :( (they haven't - it's a web app)

EDIT: this is the second time in the last couple of days an itworld article
made it to the front page. Im guessing it is because of new-er HN users? FYI
itworld is usually content-less and mundane (through to outright baiting) :)
best to hunt for another source if the story seems interesting.

(abennet also IMO pushes the "it's ok to self post" boundary a bit too far...
but that's another issue)

------
axod
This is why the web wins. It would be absolutely unprecedented for a browser
to start blocking certain sites, or restrict the user inside a browser.

------
Sidnicious
Steve Jobs is finally getting what he wanted from developers back when the
iPhone was released: web apps being developed instead of native applications.

Developers love the SDK, web apps are obviously-less capable than native
applications, but there's no approval process for web apps. That's what this
has come down to: it doesn't matter how good the platform is if you can't
distribute.

~~~
stanleydrew
But the app store has been instrumental in growing the iPhone's popularity.
Why would Jobs prefer web apps? Or am I missing some sarcasm here?

~~~
lallysingh
The app store, like the music store, makes a little over breakeven. All Jobs
really cares about is selling more phones -- the rest is just to support this
primary goal.

~~~
stanleydrew
Right, but that's exactly my point. The native apps are fueling sales of the
phone. The Apple ads don't say "10,000,000 web apps available online," they
say "100,000 apps available in the app store." So I'm not seeing how Steve
Jobs can possibly have wanted developers to create web apps all along?

~~~
ericd
He's referring to the fact that when the iPhone was released, Jobs strongly
played down the importance of a native SDK and played up the idea of making
iPhone-centric webapps. It was some months before they released the native
SDK.

~~~
Sidnicious
This is what I meant. Web apps are becoming important again not because
there's no SDK but because the SDK is effectively unusable for some
applications.

------
toisanji
I literally just released my own version last night. <http://googlevoicer.com>
Google's older version was horrible. Their newer version is nicer, but still
very slow because of all the page loading. To make it better they should cache
the whole application in the browser.

~~~
e1ven
Two notes- 1, your app doesn't set a default bookmark name, defaulting to
"Untitled"; 2, I don't really feel comfortable handing over my google
username/password to you- No offense intended, it's just bad policy. Can you
do this via OAuth?

~~~
toisanji
Thanks for the tips! The username and password is stored on your phone via
sqlite, which is then sent to my server where I keep an open connection
between with google voice, I don't store the actual username and password
anywhere. I understand your concern about credentials, I was thinking about
releasing the code to my server.

------
ugh
Honest question: Could somebody explain to me why it is bad for Apple when
iPhone owners can use Google Voice?

~~~
InclinedPlane
Most likely because it violates some term or other in an exclusivity agreement
between AT&T and Apple for the iPhone.

~~~
ugh
So it's not bad for Apple, only bad for the Apple-AT&T relationship? Apple
might as well not care and happily approve the app if such terms didn't exist?

~~~
InclinedPlane
_"Apple might as well not care and happily approve the app if such terms
didn't exist?"_

Likely so. Note that there is a Skype app for the iPhone but it is restricted
such that it will only make voice calls through wifi. It's rumored that AT&T
has been opposed to VoIP traffic over its 3G data network though it has just
recently finished work necessary to make such things feasible and may reverse
its earlier decisions (paving the way for full-featured skype and google voice
iPhone apps).

~~~
stanleydrew
But GV isn't a VoIP service. So AT&T opening up its 3G network to VoIP traffic
will have no effect on Apple's decision to accept or reject a GV app, and it
can't have played any part in the original rejection.

~~~
InclinedPlane
How is Google Voice _not_ VoIP? When one uses Google Voice one's voice is
transmitted over an IP network, that seems to be the very definition of VoIP.
Attempting to claim otherwise would seem to be to play semantic games.

~~~
stanleydrew
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Your voice is _not_ transmitted over an IP
network with Google Voice. That's why it's _not_ VoIP. There are no semantic
games involved. Since I feel like I've beat this to death a few times before,
I'll just point you to this: <http://www.itworld.com/print/75774>.

And yes the Wikipedia entry for Google Voice is mistaken. I should probably
fix that for them...

------
dirtbox
I love it when big players start throwing competitive punches, and we're set
to win big from Google attacking such a monopolistic clique as the cellular
network industry. I suppose this also means that Google Voice is nearly ready
for a public release.

------
swolchok
Still not a data-only enabler -- greets the user with a "what is the number of
this phone" dialog on first use. Guess I shouldn't expect 100% free outgoing
from Google; they probably don't stand to make money on that.

~~~
stanleydrew
Yes, GV itself is not a data only enabler. We must wait for Google to
integrate the recently acquired Gizmo5 for that. I expect Google to roll out a
seamless data only mobile service integrating GV and Gizmo5 with plans from
T-mobile by the end of the year, and hopefully during the summer.

------
stanleydrew
I can't imagine that this will satisfy those of us who have become accustomed
to the tight integration of GV with Android. But it is good to see Google
working to provide some support for iPhone owners.

------
bonaldi
If only Apple would ban them from the UK so they could strike back by opening
Google Voice up here, too.

------
awt
Anyone know a way to run this in an Site-specific-browser app on the iPhone?

~~~
mannkind
Copy the following javascript on your iPhone...

javascript:var%20s=document.createElement('meta');s.setAttribute('content',%20'yes');s.setAttribute('name',%20'apple-
mobile-web-app-
capable');document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0].appendChild(s);alert('Now%20add%20the%20webpage%20to%20your%20home%20screen!');void(s);

* Visit voice.google.com

* Paste javascript into address bar, click "Go"

* Dismiss notification ("Now add the webpage to your homescreen")

* Add Google Voice to your Home Screen.

I didn't test it too much, but it appears to work fine in a SSB.

~~~
Timothee
I was just writing a page with that same explanation! Now, to you all the
women, money and success…

It did seem to work for most apps I tried too. (Gmail, Voice, Tasks) There's
also a meta tag to select the kind of status bar you want (gray, black or
translucent) but it seems that it's dismissed if the page doesn't really have
it.

------
j3g
cool, I jailbroke and have a gvoice app which is buggy but works 90% of the
time

