Hacker News Reader

Comment by wvenable | Hacker News Reader

> If Google voice were so innovative and amazing it would be something I wish I could get.

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.

View on HN

>It is.

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.

> Google voice is what? An implementation of VoIP?

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.

I did look it up before I posted. Voice IP with some functionality to turn your messages to text. Their not the first or only people to do any of these things.

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".

Of course, if you have another other AT&T phone (Android, WinMo, Blackberry) you have no problem using Google Voice. The only way you can't use it (with a native app) on the AT&T network is if you have an iPhone.

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.

No, you'll never get VLC because there's no point in it; the phone isn't powerful enough to decode videos in realtime unless (a) you use hardware decryption support or (b) they're the size of a postage stamp. The built-in video player supports all the codecs the hardware supports. I really can't think of any benefit to having VLC on a phone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com