Daring Fireball on Apple's Rejection of Google Voice Apps From App Store | Hacker News Reader

Daring Fireball on Apple's Rejection of Google Voice Apps From App Store

daringfireball.net

32 pointsw1ntermute27 comments

What if Google Voice were instead Microsoft Voice? And what if Windows Mobile were as modern and competitive as Android? Would you be as surprised then that Apple is discouraging iPhone owners from using the service?

Apple is not "discouraging" iPhone owners from using the service. It is outright preventing them.

And no, I wouldn't be surprised, just as I'm not surprised by this. I do feel bad for iPhone owners, but as an Android owner with GV I can't say I'm not enjoying this rare feeling of smug superiority.

I'm probably going to be buying a smart phone in the next year. I'm finding myself leaning more and more towards an Android phone as the applications at least seem more open. I like a lot more control over my device than Apple seems to want me to have.

As I recall though, you still can't get root on any of the Android phones without trickery, right?

If you call it trickery to install a older version of the G1 firmware via a raw system image (.nbh), and from there move to a more "enlightened" firmware. It's really not that hard.

Not sure if anyone has achieved this on the HTC Hero or Magic, however, and from what I have seen, there is much to like in the Hero.

Now that Apple is rejecting apps from huge software companies (even business partners in the case of Google), they're destroying the credibility of the platform. The technology and tools they provide developers are first class, but the increasingly erratic and anti-competitive app rejections will drive away business interest.

I really hope Apple smartens up. They have a game-changing device, mobile OS, and distribution platform, but their bullish business tactics are destroying innovation.

In a way, I am glad that Apple is now rejecting apps from huge software companies and their business partners.

In the near-term, you are right that this might create uncertainty for the viability of businesses leveraging the platform. But nothing will hasten Apple smartening up than having large companies with deep pockets clamoring for change in the App store approval/rejection process.

Gruber updated his post. It was AT&T all along.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/07/28/att-app-store

My earlier statements about the carriers still apply. They're just prolonging the inevitable, which isn't so surprising. I think the fear that people will be able to SMS for free is a big deal to them, though things like AIM on the iPhone offer something similar, too.

As for the Voice revenue, we would still be using our minutes. I had just been considering using GV on my iPhone (through the GV website), but I've now realized that I would lose the benefit of free AT&T-AT&T calls since they would all forwarded through my GV number.

Apple should be perfectly allowed to do this, but if they insist on continuing with such behavior, you can be sure that when my contract is up for renewal, an iPhone will not be my next device.

In many ways, it's unavoidable with any US carrier. The whole text messaging racket just bothers me so much. It's such an abuse of the customer, and all of the wireless companies seem to collude to keep those rates exorbitant. It also bothers me that I can look overseas and see such low rates, which INCLUDE tethering.

When will we finally reach a better wireless marketplace? Five years, I bet. It's sad, too, because Google has really been trying to break up the death grip of these carriers (spectrum auction, open-source mobile OS, Google Voice), but they're up against multiple 1,000lb. gorillas.

It's like I keep saying:

Carriers around the world compete on price, features, coverage, and high-tech phones. Carriers in the US compete on how much they can get away with. Even "small" carriers in the US still suck just as much as the big guys. They are just presenting a more friendly image.

In this regard (fighting the gorillas) I really respect Google for its consistency: they're once again fighting for Net neutrality, this time wireless networks and not just the (my) traditional definition of the Internet.

I have an iPhone with 50 voice minutes and a 6GB data plan (I live in Canada). Clearly I value data much more than voice. I understand why the carriers are anxious about customers like me, but their business model has to change.

My 50 minutes cost $15/month. My 6GB cost $30. I have the voice because the contract stipulates I must. Why I should be prohibited from using a portion of data for voice remains a byproduct of history.

The VP of Credit Cards in any bank hates the VP of Debit Cards for eroding his revenues (and thus his personal annual bonus).

The VP of Voice in any wireless carrier hates the VP of Data for similar reasons.

The winner, of course, will be Google and any wireless carriers who structure a business purely around data delivery.

Yikes, and I thought I had it bad. Only 50 minutes?! Granted, I only use about half of my 450 (lowest you can go with AT&T).

I just wish the market would move more towards generic data access like an ISP. Voice, SMS, wireless Internet...it's all just a data pipe to me (and them), so charge me like an ISP (with speed and bandwidth caps, if necessary).

I had 450 with AT&T. It cost $35/month or so (I can't remember the intro and long-term rates). I'd gladly take 50 for only $15.

Yes, I took 50 because that's the least I could take.

Truth be told, I've constructed a plan I shouldn't have been sold. I should have had to buck up more than the combined $45 plan that I'm on.

Rogers and Fido offer slight variations on the same theme: $60 and $75 plans containing 250 minutes and up to 6GB of data . . . plus other overpriced amenities like visual voicemail, texting, and caller ID.

I was able to purchase what I have because their systems don't actually enforce their business rules. The iPhone is just another phone to the guy at the kiosk in the mall. This may have changed since December 08, but I've kept my paper copy of the contract :)

Anyone who thinks this is about protecting the cell phone carriers needs to explain why Fring and Skype are still in the App store. They are more robust replacements for actual cellular service than GV is.

I disagree with the assertion that GV being bad for cell phone carriers means it is bad for Apple.

Apple doesn't sell cell phone plans, they sell the hardware. How is it going to hurt them if people buy the hardware and use GV? It won't. As long as people need and want the device that Apple is selling, no matter what the use, then Apple should be happy. All they are doing here is turning there backs on a user base.

Anyone who

The post at least claims that Apple gets an extra subsidy from cell carriers based on expected revenues from voice and sms plans. So it could hurt Apple as well.

You're right though that the Skype app is a bit of an anomaly in light of this GV rejection.

Ah, I missed the bit about the subsidy. This highlights the need to think hard about what revenue streams you should pursue as a company: you may find that certain interests are mutually elusive, and you will have a tough time avoiding the alienation of certain facets of your user base.

Skype is WiFi only...perhaps GV will ultimately appear as a similarly limited app (thus protecting the frequently mentioned voice and SMS revenue, at least temporarily).

Google Voice is not a VoIP client, so I'm not sure what there is to limit.

Ah, good point.

I could be wrong about the SMS side of things but aren't there a number of web-based services for sending SMS messages that can be accessed on the iphone via safari?

Either way, it is clear that cellular companies need to rethink their business models and consider the fact that moving towards an Internet connectivity-based revenue stream as a primary on PDA devices is a smart move.

No matter reading this and analyzing it, turns out it was AT&T:

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/07/28/att-app-store

This is a BS argument. It's the same as saying that MS has every right to block iTunes, Firefox, Netscape, Safari (and every other product that competes with a MS product) from installing on Windows.

Imagine where Windows would have been, and Mac OSX for that matter, if the only products that were allowed on PCs, and Macs, were the ones which didn't compete with the OS vendor's products.

And BTW, the fact that GV is available on Blackberry etc. tells me with no doubt that AT&T had absolutely nothing to do with this.

Alright, then Apple, can you please provide a comparable service to GV??

Don’t think about it in terms of Apple’s relationship with its carrier partners, but instead think about it in terms of Apple’s competition with Google.

I rather find myself thinking about in terms of Apple's irresistible anti-competitive urges.

It's important to keep in mind that this doesn't prevent you from using Google Voice. You can call your Google Voice number, or you can issue an HTTP request and Google Voice will call you. As long as you can make phone calls, you can use GV. As long as you can use the web, you can have all the advanced features.

So really, Apple and AT&T aren't stopping anyone. (I am happily using the Android GV app on my AT&T phone. Turns out you can reboot their locked Windows Mobile devices into Android. Hah!)

Anti-competitive behavior. Just sayin'.

Gruber is a tool.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com