Apple Says No To Google Voice On The iPhone
from the shameless dept
As we wait to hear if Spotify's mobile app gets approved (I heard a rumor that it was, but have seen no proof yet), we hear of another questionable Apple iPhone rejection: the Google Voice iPhone app has been forbidden from the iPhone, though the reasons aren't entirely clear. Still, it does show that Apple doesn't care who you are, or how big a name. If it doesn't like your app, too bad. Once again, this seems like an argument for why more open solutions will win out in the end. Not only do users not have to worry about arbitrary rejections like this, but innovation will happen much faster on open platforms where each innovation doesn't need to be approved by a mercurial secret cabal.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: app store, arbitrary, google voice, iphone, voice
Companies: apple, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the main reason I have not bought an iPhone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Know why we love it so much? Because things are controlled at Apple and what they release just works. All the way back to the Mac Color Classic I have over in the corner that still works and we still play games on that have worked for over 20 years.
Call me a fanboy if you want - I am a fan. I will continue to be a fan so long as they keep producing things that beat Microsoft with an ugly stick as they have been. I also will keep buying Apple products and using them very happily. 2 iPods and an iPhone in my household? Damn straight. Know how many Zunes or Palms? None. Not a damn one. No problems, either.
So yes, blame Apple for not allowing an app that would overload the cellular network of the carrier and make nincompoops whine that they need a better network. Whine because you don't have a phone that does everything and costs nothing. Whine more. Come on, whine!
BOOOOOOOOOHOOOOooooooooooooooo...............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Rob R. you seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder feeling you have to justify the choices you have made. You remind me of a beaten wife, defending her husband's actions "he only does it because he loves me".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? So, the removal of DRM in lieu of a 3 tier price scheme but offer none at $0.69 works for you?
Or how applications, which were approved, get pulled over night because someone at Apple deems it offensive works for you?
Wow, your definition of "works" is so liberal, I'm thankful some of us with brains refuse to support this company's way of "working" with customers.
I'm sure you'll have no problem when Apple starts making other decisions it sees fit because they "work" for you.
Idiot.
The entire point of applications is to open up information for sharing. iTunes blocked on Palm Pre isn't "working", it's limiting. What purpose does this company have for blocking WORKING software from a competitor phone?
Nevermind. Trying to explain this to you would be a waste of time.
And Techdirt, maybe you should quit reporting crap like this. Let Apple continue to make stupid mistakes like this until the customers finally realize they're not paying for product, but draconian rules and regulations.
This way, damn Apple can finally die already!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wouldn't expect him, or any other die-hard company supporter, to ever see through gilded corporate masterpieces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Others want something that looks sleek, contains the necessary features for them (and has the option to add further features through an app store, which no other product did, it should be noted), and just works. For those, Apple's obsession with full control of hardware and software and somewhat whimsical approach to approval procedures to third-party apps might not matter that much.
Let's try to avoid turning this into a pro-/anti-Apple flamewar. The iPhone has its flaws but it's still a damn good product.
That Guy above is probably spot on, Apple may well have been influenced/persuaded through some gentle nudging by the various carriers that shelled out boatloads of cash to get exclusivity on the iPhone and see Google Voice as a direct threat to their revenues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What? I think you are confusing ergonomics with aestetics. The iPhone uses both. The utility comes in with the ergonomics and the software. Usable maps anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I don't care what any of you say or think. I love shiny gadgets and Apple has the best shiny gadgets. They "just work." I don't care that Apple dictates how I will use the device I pay a lot of money for. I love it when major corporations stifle technology. Google = Sucks. Microsoft = Sucks. Now wallow in you Google Voice misery while I go play some crappy 20 y/o game on my crappy 20 y/o Mac because it still just works."
Whatever you say Rob. Too bad Google Voice doesn't "just work." From the latest round of Macbook updates a whole lot of those don't "just work" in many regards. But hey, keep drinking the Kool-Aid. I mean anybody with common sense knows that innovation is IMPOSSIBLE outside of Cupertino.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Too many apps have been accepted and then removed. Rejected, and then later allowed in. Rejected with no reasonable explanation. There's no rhyme or reason to most of it.
As soon as I see a compelling Android-based phone, I'm getting that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Classic.
So the two most important selling points to you are: it has the word Apple on it, and it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is number one why i don't like apple, i buy a product i want to do what i want with it, i paid for it after all, i did not rent it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Umm, what? Even if this was an actual sentence, there would still be no logic here. What does free incoming calls (or the lack of) have to do with Google Voice not being allowed on the iPhone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You don't actually dial out to anyone. You only receive calls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) you get online and tell GV to call you and call the person you want to talk to and just connect you.
2) you call your own GV number and then make outgoing calls from there.
I would think AT&T would love GV because it is more connections that they can charge you for because the calls to and from GV are not in-network and in-network calls are free. GV is not VOIP from your phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe Apple had the same initial thought I did and didn't look into it any further. :? It wouldn't replace any iPhone user's phone service at all; if anything, it'd help them use it more effectively.
Can't have that now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then you say Apple probably evaluated it as poorly as you.
I don't like their closed system, but (esp. with a product as high profile as GV) I'm willing to concede that they probably understood it better than you before rejecting it!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The poor providers
Particularly mostly free competition. I say mostly because the international calling is not free, just very cheap.
So far I greatly enjoy Google Voice on my G1, if the Iphoners really want to use it they can via the website:
www.google.com/voice/m
This inconvenience will hopefully not stifle usage. If it does, I don't feel bad for the Iphoners. They still get to have their over-rated phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The poor providers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The poor providers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Web based apps
Would I Love a full featured GUI on my phone absolutely, and shame on Apple for doing such a stupid thing and capitulating to carriers.
Will I use the web version of Google Apps to send txt messages and place cheap international calls you betcha. ATT can only keep plugging the dam for so long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Web based apps
You do not understand the industry. If Apple did not "capitulate" to carriers, you would not have an iPhone in your pocket.
Apple got a LOT of concessions from AT&T that were UNPRECEDENTED and way out of the norm. They were able to do so because their device was so iconic, and they also brought to AT&T their base of customers, iTunes users, and fanboys. Apple had "hand" at the negotiation table.
But don't be a fool and think AT&T didn't also have "hand". AT&T was not a lightweight. Without a big national carrier, Apple would have no scale, fewer distribution points, and would be selling an unsubsidized $600 phone in June 2007. At that price, volume would be constrained (as it was). It was the AT&T subsidy that brought the price down to $200 that put the iPhone in the winner's circle, and only the carrier can offer a subsidy, because only they can recoup it in monthly revenues.
Basically, both sides of the negotiating table made painful concessions. AT&T is used to total control of their phones, Apple is used to total control of their devices and iTunes environment. Both gave up control to launch the iPhone. Neither "capitulated".
If the control had gone more in AT&T's favor, they would have dumbed down the iPhone and made it another ROKR. If the control had gone more in Apple favor, they would lose the recurring revenue share, and probably lose the subsidy.
Now the two companies are partners (like it or not). And they both have a say in how products and services are rolled out. Good, bad, legal? I dunno. But it is a big step forwards over the way we were.
Apple put a tremendous dent in the way the carriers normally did business, and they could only do it with a great device. Sure, they made some concessions. That's business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Web based apps
Actually, you're still paying that extra $400, it's just spread out in payments over the term of your extra expensive contract. Now, Apple could have offered a payment plan that would have worked out to be the same or even less over the same length of time if they had wanted to, but they didn't. That was because they wanted more control over what the users could do with the phone and partnering with an exclusive service provider was a way to accomplish that.
AT&T is used to total control of their phones, Apple is used to total control of their devices and iTunes environment.
Actually, Apple *doesn't* have that kind of control over their other computers and they were jealous of the way that wireless companies like AT&T did. That's why they partnered with one.
Lock-in and control is central to both Apple's and AT&T's business models, so they have similar goals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Web based apps
When I say Apple is used to total control of their devices and iTunes environment, I am not thinking of their computers, for which they exercise less control. But iPods and Itunes are pretty locked up! Look how they react to the Palm Pre, and look at AAC DRM.
Then, I disagree with your premise that Apple could have sold the phones themselves for $600 with a payment plan. While, mathematically, this would work out to pretty much the same, it is not a likely market success. Consumers would compare the $600 iPhone with the $200 and free phones from carriers, and the masses would choose the cheaper upfront payments. Also, no carrier in the USA offers a discounted plan for BYO Phone. So you would still end up paying $100 or so per month at ATT or T-MO to connect your $600 iPhone, but NOT get the benefit of the subsidy. Nope, this wouldn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Web based apps
Ah yes, the old "free phone" lie the carriers like to tell. That's really blatant fraud, in my opinion, but law enforcement looks the other way when it's the likes of AT&T doing it.
Also, no carrier in the USA offers a discounted plan for BYO Phone.
Yeah, that fact kind of blows away the "it's to pay for the phone" excuse telco apologists give for why the carriers require contracts. They still require the same contracts and charge the same rates whether you're getting a phone or not. I really wish the FCC would prohibit the telcos from essentially requiring people to purchase other items in order to get phone service. In other industries, such as electricity, water, gas, etc., that's illegal. For example, the power company (at least where I live) can't tell you that you have to go buy some new appliances from one of their "partners" before they'll hook you up for electricity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you say Android?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can you say Android?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you say Android?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you say Android?
iPhone is cool, like Apple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GV
Bye,Bye AT&T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GV
Google Voice is a great thing and will definitely change things, but there is a ZERO% chance that it will make AT&T go bye bye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GV
http://www.tmcnet.com/news/2009/07/27/4293373.htm
"Like I said bye bye AT&T"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: GV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: GV
They will become irrelevant as a cel provider with the ability to turn wifi devices, like the Ipod Touch, into free cel devices. Do yourself a little research first then comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GV
We heard this over and over. At Techdirt, we kept saying that WiFi was local, and cellular is wide area. But the other side kept going, saying Muni-WiFi was going to bring down cellular.
In the end, we see that cellular phones ALSO have wifi in them, to offload data traffic whenever the carrier can. However, people STILL have their subscriptions (market penetration numbers and usage numbers for cellular keep growing) to cellular carriers.
Hasn't the "wifi will kill..." gambit been discredited enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why bother?
Congratulations, you are a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: why bother?
The one side says how much they love it.
The other side says it's just a shiny object that limits your control.
Because this is how YOU each interpret it. Who gives a shit? If we're talking about the market, the business, then what really matters is how an iPhone connects to the mass market. And the evidence is that it does OK.
Like many of you Techdirt readers, I'm an extreme geek so I don't want an iPhone. I don't want to be limited. I like installing prototype apps to my WinMo phone, doing streaming, Slingbox, Skype, Kyte.tv, Qik, etc.
But do you really think the mass market understands or even knows about the limitations of their iPhone? Before iPhone, it was an extremely small subset of the market that had EVER installed an application to their phone. Now, we're supposed to cry a river because Apple blocks 2% of the submitted apps? These phones are going out to people that are installing apps for the first time because the iPhone makes it easy, so how limiting is Apple's model to those people? Not at all!! (different story for developers)
I've been doing phenomenally advanced stuff on my phone for years. I have been alone. I ran the Disney team that built mobile content for phones (some brands you might recognize like ESPN and ABCNews) in 1999-2001. It was lonely when nobody knew how to view the content I made - and not much changed by 2007. The iPhone was the device that took techno-fools, and empowered them to do the same stuff as me. Meanwhile, I still have a few tricks...but my phone also has hiccups, hangs, glitches, etc.
I do enjoy the irony of reading an article that suggests, or seeing an iPhone user act as if they are "techie" or "a geek". I see this group as tech laggards. But in reality, they are just the mass market that needs a product's value proposition to be easily accessible.
It's not about you. It's about the mass market. This iPhone is a winner. It is fantastic. It is seminal, it is a game changer, it empowers normal people to actually USE the mobile web. Deny that in the face of sales and data traffic statistics, and you'll seem like an anti-Apple fool.
But still, it's not the right device for me, and maybe not you either. So we get something else, but why rant against iPhone just cuz it's not for you. My HTC Touch Pro is pretty slick. Doesn't mean the iPhone sucks.
Metaphor time: An Android or WinMo user saying the iPhone sucks because "it's actually a simple device and you lose control" is like a stick-shifter saying automatic transmissions suck in cars. It may be so for you, but the market disagrees most vehemently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why bother?
Good point. There is indeed a seemingly large segment of the population that wants to be told what to do, what to think, etc. To them, having Apple as their nanny is actually a good thing because it makes life simpler for them.
Like many of you Techdirt readers, I'm an extreme geek so I don't want an iPhone. I don't want to be limited. I like installing prototype apps to my WinMo phone, doing streaming, Slingbox, Skype, Kyte.tv, Qik, etc.
But many people DO want to be limited. Freedom is a scary thing to them and they want someone like Steve Jobs to guide them. Yes, they actually WANT Apple to tell them which apps to run and which not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why bother?
Absolutely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misunderstanding about Google Voice
Where GV will impact ATT rates:
- SMS
- International calls (because you'll be connecting to an international number, but only using "normal" minutes)
Unless my understanding is off (and I don't think it is), then some of the comments in this thread need to be re-thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misunderstanding about Google Voice
GV will place calls to gizmo5 accounts. G5 has a web app so you can make receive calls via their web page, and a number of clients for operating systems and mobile phones.
i don't think they have an iphone app, but G5 uses SIP for it's VOIP protocol, so any SIP client should work for making and receiving calls.
you can integrate GV and G5 under your user preferences on the G5 website so you can automate going to the google talk website and have GV call your G5 account and the party you are calling up.
since this is all SIP, there is no PSTN termination and assuming you can find a working sip client, you could use GV+G5 to make and receive calls using the data option on your phone.
i have not tested this on an iphone, since i don't have one, but it works on my nokia N810 over wifi, and with my sipura ATA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misunderstanding about Google Voice
Further, even SMS is forwarded to your phone, using SMS credits. This doesn't have to be the case ... you can go to the website to check your SMS, but that's inconvenient. Now, a native GV app with push notification to alert you to incoming SMS would certainly get around ATT's SMS credit requirements, but there are already "free SMS" apps in the App Store, so I don't get that objection, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Misunderstanding about Google Voice
there are SIP clients that run on mobile platforms and with the availability of web based voip clients for both GV and G5, the possibility exists to make and receive calls using the [supposedly] unlimited data plan or via wifi, effectively bypassing the use of your AT&T minutes or AT&T SMS.
i believe this possibility (or the specter of such a possibility) is the reason for apple blocking the GV mobile app.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Misunderstanding about Google Voice
In case you missed it, we're talking about the Apple iPhone. Apple has not approved any SIP clients for the iPhone and the Google Voice app they banned did not include one either.
i believe this possibility (or the specter of such a possibility) is the reason for apple blocking the GV mobile app.
Considering what I just wrote above, your reasoning then makes no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Misunderstanding about Google Voice
GV only makes use of my mobile minutes if I have it set to call my cell phone. However, I can set it to call any number I want it to. For example, I have it set to call my work number between 7:30am and 4:30pm weekdays and my cell phone any other time. So it would only use my cell minutes if it called my cell. However, it does not use my cell minutes for long distance or international calls. It is only a local call to my cell phone no matter what number I dial.
The way it works is that you purchase international minutes directly from GV. With rates substantially lower than the rates that POTS or even cell providers offer.
So what the second commenter (tony) said, that some people had trouble understanding, makes sense. If you have a cell plan that allows for free incoming calls, i.e. it does not charge against your cell plan minutes. Then GV truly does not cost you anything. GV calles your phone via your GV number, so that call is free to you, then GV completes the call to the person you are trying to reach using the POTS. Again, not using any of your cell minutes.
So really, the only way that GV can impact the price you have to pay AT&T, or any provider, is if you have it set to allow SMS messages to be sent to your phone. And that's only if you don't have a $20 unlimited text plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Misunderstanding about Google Voice
Second, ATT does charge for incoming calls, so no matter how you use GV, you're going to be "using minutes."
True, the SMS feature (if you don't forward them to your phone) and the international calling are a threat to ATT. However, "lost minutes" aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Info.
Also, you *do* make outgoing calls with GV. You have to call your own GV number. The "get around minutes" plan only works on networks where you can pick "favorite" numbers to not count towards your minutes-- because picking your GV number would then allow you to route everything through them, and nothing would cost minutes.
AT&T does not have a "favorite" type plan that I am aware of.
Sean Kovacs (The creator of GV mobile) got a phone call that said:
Just FYI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Starting to sound a bit bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So when Apple rejects an app because of some convoluted ridiculous reason, Techdirt is supposed to not care because they don't want to appear biased? Did you forget that you're reading techDIRT? They would call out Microsoft or Ubuntu or whoever if they acted stupid as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And even then, we only argue that the closed nature will leave the door open for other more open approaches in the future - either from Apple or someone else.
Some work by techdirt:
https://www.insightcommunity.com/case.php?iid=1052
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's just hope...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
better value...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]