
Google Releases A Nuke. Apple Won’t Win This Fight. - vaksel
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/18/google-releases-a-nuke-apple-wont-win-this-fight/
======
dfranke
_We’re offering a free TechCrunch tshirt to any Google employee that forwards
that screenshot to us. No questions asked._

Anyone left on HN who still wants to stand up for Arrington's reputation as a
journalist?

~~~
ksvs
There are few reporters who wouldn't accept leaked documents. Some of the most
famous news stories were based on leaks.

~~~
dfranke
There are hopefully considerably fewer offering explicit quid pro quos for
said documents.

~~~
davidw
I will see the shirt offer and raise him one shirt. Any Google employee who
forwards me confidential and highly important legal documents, and thus
risking immediate firing if not a lawsuit of their own, will get not one, but
_two_ t-shirts! All the way from Italy!

Sheez...

~~~
raquo
Free startup idea: T-shirt funding pool for leaked documents.

------
citrik
So, I'm a little confused about the root issue here. Can anyone explain what's
so special about Google Voice compared to Skype? It seems that Apple has
approved an app with a similar functionality in Skype for the iPhone. Is there
something extra special about Google Voice that I'm not seeing? If the two
apps are functionally identical maybe Apple is hung up on some aspect of the
implementation. The whole "Apple believed the application duplicated the core
dialer functionality of the iPhone” sounds like it could be more of a
technical issue vs a functionality / religion issue. (Religion being Thou
shall not make phone calls without glorious At&T)

~~~
j_b_f
There's no relevant difference between GV and the plethora VOIP & dialer apps
out there. At least none that would be explained away with a straight face by
the "core functionality" argument.

------
Luc
I would have appreciated a more descriptive title instead of the tabloid style
one. Apologies if that seems fussy.

------
ulysses
Really? Contradicting something another company has said is "A Nuke"?

A nuke would be Google search blocking iPhones.

~~~
WilliamLP
A nuke would be critical mass of U235 dropped on Apple headquarters:)

------
gojomo
Anyone have a copy of any bona-fide Apple App Store rejection notice?

It's possible both sides are playing semantic games. A "we can't include this
app at this time without tweaks" could be seen as a 'rejection' or merely a
'request for info/changes' depending on your perspective. I wouldn't put it
past Apple to have carefully worded all 'rejections' and 'approvals' so that
there is always wiggle room in both directions.

~~~
drewcrawford
False. The iTunes Connect interface displays a red stoplight and a "Rejected"
indication when an app has been rejected. Can't be clearer than that. Now
whether or not they showed this image to Google I haven't the foggiest idea,
but that's the way it's always happened to me. Behold:
[http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/59605/imgboards/Screen%20shot%202...](http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/59605/imgboards/Screen%20shot%202009-09-18%20at%209.37.09%20PM.png)

As for e-mail rejection notices, they can be a little weasley. Here's the
operative sentence in a rejection I got from Apple:

> We've reviewed [app name] and determined that we cannot post this version of
> your iPhone application to the App Store because [reason].

~~~
gojomo
Thanks for the details!

Though, I can see Apple's wiggle-room still. The image talks about rejecting a
'binary'. The boilerplate text, rejecting a 'version'.

So picturing myself seated on Apple's (self-interested, self-serving) mental
furniture, they may interpret things as: "We've rejected a version, and
rejected a binary, but the _app_ itself is still (and perpetually!) eligible
for further consideration."

~~~
drewcrawford
Now we're playing semantics. The problem with redefining "rejecting an app" is
that the phrase already has a perfectly good meaning: "dismiss as inadequate,
inappropriate, or not to one's taste." Rejecting doesn't (have to) imply
permanence; I rejected non-Newtonian physics for much of my life, but I do so
no longer. If showing a red stoplight, the word "Rejected", and Phil Schiller
calling you to say the app's not in the store doesn't mean the app was
rejected than the phrase has no meaning. (Again, don't have any insider
knowledge here; just inferring what happened based on my experience with app
rejections).

Further, even playing by Apple's own semantics (which I take strong issue
with), there's clearly an "Application status" called "Rejected". So even if
they were to suddenly become nihilists and apps are never rejected, that's not
consistent with what the iTunes Connect interface actually says, which (IANAL)
I presume is legally actionable with respect to what constitutes an official
Apple communication.

~~~
tomjen2
Law is just playing semantics.

------
MicahWedemeyer
Am I missing something, or are screenshots impossible to fake now? I make fake
screens all the time for fun.

------
econoplas
Apple could easily reject Google voice app with their "thy program shalt not
containeth an interpretereth" loophole in the iPhone SDK agreement section
3.3.2... they've done this with at least one app that I'm aware of
([http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/20/full-
commodore-64-emulator...](http://toucharcade.com/2009/06/20/full-
commodore-64-emulator-rejected-from-app-store/) and
<http://www.manomio.com/index.php/blog/important_update>).

How many programs nowadays of the complexity of Google voice don't use some
kind of internal state machine interpreter or domain-specific-language to
simplify the programming model?

So they could use that loophole in a negative way to hinder competition
whenever they choose to do so, not saying they "would" but they certainly
"could".

~~~
GHFigs
Except they "didn't". They've already listed their reasons
(<http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/>) and to my
knowledge have never used the interpreter rule in anything remotely resembling
the way you describe.

------
jongraehl
Screenshots are evidence because you'd really have to be lame to spend the
effort on a perfect forgery?

Is it that they do feel shame and won't falsely claim forgery on top of what
they're already caught at?

------
arithmetic
Does anyone even care? Even if there was Google Voice on the iPhone, would you
use it?

Having said that, the TC headline may as well be right. This is one nuke that
Apple is going to find hard to swallow.

