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.
So rather than being a "blatant lie", it is actually true. That's kind of my point.
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.
I don't own an iphone, but I imagine there is a native email application that Apple wrote. Let's say you have mac mail, and are popping your mail to your phone. I also imagine there are plenty of other email clients, which notably Apple has not rejected. If you then download and configure one of these other clients to pop your email is that duplicating a native function of the phone? Is it confusing? I argue no, and apparently Apple agrees since said apps certainly exist in the App Store.
Choosing to consume your data in a way other than Apple intended seems to be the problem with Google Voice. The argument of confusion by duplicating functionality is patronizing to users and pretty thin.
Then cite the facts, as said before. Denigrating people based on what they "buy" (when your argument hinges on "reading between the lines") is not convincing. You may be right, but at this rate I'll never know, because you have a long way to go between connecting "questionable" to the elaborate intrigue you described before. That is what I don't buy, because I honestly don't see any fact-grounded reason why the simple explanation isn't true, and you haven't offered any.
It'd be a waste of time for both of us to try and shoot holes in each others' speculations, because it just leads to more and more speculation, e.g. if Apple didn't want to permit things like Google Voice even as a web app why did they develop the JavaScript hooks it depends on? There is no response to that sort of question doesn't spawn more questions than it answers.