Google voice is one of the most innovative apps? I've never even heard of it before today. Everyone I know uses Skype (which is on the iPhone, right?).
And speaking of Skype, will they be allowed to do video chat on the iPhone 4? Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I wouldn't bet my house on it though.
For example, I do wish I could have VLC, but it's pretty obvious why I can't. This is the trade off of controlling your channels. Apple can't just say "well, we let this app on and if people want to use it to watch 'illegal' movies, there's nothing we can do about it", since they very well can do something about it. Android, with their open architecture probably can't block things like VLC so they can't be held responsible for people using it.
It is. When I posted my comment, Google voice was the main example I was thinking of (but certainly not the only one). The fact that you don't know about it is part of the problem. It'd easily be on the top of the app store lists if it was available. It just goes to show that because of Apple you don't even know what you're missing.
Your VLC example doesn't make any sense. You can watch whatever illegal movies (and illegal music) on your iPhone all you want using the built in software. You'll never get VLC, not because of anything illegal, but because "it duplicates functionality already existing in the phone". That's it.
Google voice is what? An implementation of VoIP? I wouldn't call that innovative, there are plenty of companies doing VoIP, none of which would ever be allowed on the iPhone because of carrier restrictions.
>You'll never get VLC, not because of anything illegal, but because "it duplicates functionality already existing in the phone". That's it.
Not true. Have you been in the app store? There are tons of apps that just duplicate functionality. There are several browsers and a few streaming video players.
No, it's not. I could tell you spend the next 15 minutes telling you what it is or you could just look it up yourself on this thing called the Internet. Your purposeful ignorance here is not a good argument tactic.
The reason that Apple rejected Google voice was because of the "duplicate functionality" argument. Other apps don't prove anything except that they aren't threatening to Apple. As soon as an app exists that is, they just pull out one of these excuses and it's gone.
It is a shame that they used "duplicate functionality" as the excuse, they should have just said "this is not acceptable under our AT&T plan".
Also, it's not VoIP from the phone like Skype is. It uses your regular voice connection and voice minutes and not the data connection. What it does provide is a portable phone number, free SMS, voice mail transcriptions, and a host of other calling features. It's the kind of innovative application you'd expect when you combine the cloud with smartphone technology. Apple just doesn't want you to have it.
Unfortunately, back to your original comment about why apps are rejected (private apis, etc, etc) is, unfortunately for you, not true. Lets say you want an app to control your PC bittorrent app from your iPhone? -- Forget it, also not allowed. I understand now allowing apps that put strain on the network or use private apis but rejecting innovative apps or app that hurt Steve Jobs sense of morality just rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather have an open platform with a slower upgrade cycle.
To anyone who has heard of Google Voice it's pretty clear that it's valid to put it forward as a innovative product. The level to which it's failed to permeated the broader public consciousness doesn't count against it at this stage in it's existence.
and I'd hate to contribute to making HN another Reddit...