Apple Answers the FCC’s Questions
apple.com
apple.com
This is misleading bullshit.
First, they mention the "phone" icon right after complaining that GV is "replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail" to try to give people the false impression that GV is stealing the phone icon, which an app can't even do.
Then, they try to claim that by cherry-picking calls and not letting the forwarded calls hit apple voicemail, they're "disabling" visual voicemail, which is just untrue. People could still call your iPhone's direct phone number, and visual voicemail would work juts fine.
I'm glad you pointed this out, because even as a technically-minded reader (albeit not one with an iPhone), I was led to believe exactly that.
It's much simpler and less fatiguing to have one copy of any given thing. While I might chafe at their deciding this for me, I think their policy makes a certain amount of sense in the context of keeping (most of) their users loving their devices.
I would not be surprised if it turns out that the FCC was staffed by tech morons appointed for political reasons, but at least a couple examples of moronic behavior seems called for to keep this a useful discussion. Mind you, even making a morally distasteful decision does not qualify as moronic, there would need to be an indication of an actual misunderstanding of the underlying issues.
I think if you look over the last decade or two of the FCC board, you will find people were chosen for their political connections and willingness to support industry status quo.
The new chairman seems a refreshing departure from this trend.
Answer 2: Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter.
--
I guess that is about as straight an answer as we could have hoped for on the issue. Apple, not AT&T, made the call.
* It would've not been an act of "Apple consulting with AT&T"
* It would've not been a contractual condition
* It would've not been a non-contractual understanding
It's all legal speak. Apple said what they had to say not to fan the flames.
AT&T and Apple discussed a proposed iPhone application from MobiTV and CBS that was designed to stream live video and audio from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. AT&T and Apple discussed the likelihood that such an application could cause substantial network congestion and degradation of service for certain customers on AT&T’s 3G network, especially customers accessing cell sites located near colleges involved in the tournament.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983512/ATT-Response-to-FCC-iPhon...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983640/Google-Response-to-FCC
Personally, I suspect that Apple would prefer that AT&T take the blame for as much as possible.
From the tone of the letter, it sounds like Apple tries to shift blame onto AT&T where they can- For instance, Apple was responsible for the initial SlingPlayer rejection.
Apple's response says that they rejected the app because it violates AT&T's TOS, but doesn't say that AT&T requested the rejection.
Viewed in the context of the Google Voice rejection, this leads me to believe that Apple is happy to be able to point to the TOS as the reason for the rejection, rather than having to decide if they want to allow an (indirect) competitor to their iTunes TV store.
Uh, because the FCC has the power and authority to make things very unpleasant for Apple if they didn't reply?
I wonder if that implies that there are contractual conditions and non-contractual understandings that exist, but were not a factor in the decision-making process in this case (but was a factor in other cases). Though I guess answer 3 answers that.
Update: Though, there is this at the end: "In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and updates."
That computes to around 515 applications per day. Can't really blame them for taking too long, eh?
Yes, you can. Apple could easily afford hiring 250 people to review applications - at 2 applications a day, they should be able to thoroughly test apps the same day they get them.
Recruiting, training and retaining 100 employees at a salary of $48k/yr - which seems like a pretty good starting wage to me - would only run them about $8-10 million a year, or ~0.2% of that profit margin. What the hell, double that amount if you need to rent/build a new office block for them. It would still pay itself in terms of positive press and developer relations.
40 reviewers each testing 40 apps per day is absurd, that's less than 15 minutes each. OK I know a lot of iPhone 'apps' do only one thing and have a novelty half-life of 90 seconds, but still.
These #s from http://www.macnewsworld.com/rsstory/67654.html
Right now the approval delay is about two weeks - that's not bad. Your testing cycle should be longer than that. An extra two weeks should not be a big deal.
The Google Voice thing is annoying but not altogether unsurprising since no one is really pretending this is an open platform:
Google is of course free to provide Google Voice on the iPhone as a web application through Apple’s Safari browser, just as they do for desktop PCs, or to provide its “Google-branded” user experience on other phones, including Android-based phones, and let consumers make their choices.
In other words: just try it Google. You're going to play by our rules here.
How does a 3rd party app prevent voicemail from being stored on the iPhone? I don't understand.
After you answer the phone, Google then dials out to the number specified in the API request.
For instance, if I wanted to call my parents, the app on my iPhone would send a HTTP request to Google with their number. Google then dials me, and once I pick up, it would dial my parents.
My parents would see the Caller-ID from Google, not from my Phone.
If they call back this Caller-ID, Google would answer the call, and then dial my phone, so I could speak with them.
If I didn't answer, then Google would record a voicemail message. This message would be both emailed to me, and accessible via API from the application that I originally dialed them with.
Google's ultimate plan is to allow you to "port" your number to their service, so that your normal, regular number becomes the one on their caller-id, and AT&T assigns you a new number that you would never give out.
My understanding is that on other platforms, the Google Voice dialer does actually hijack the actual phone application. (see [1] for a testimonial) To do that, you would need to reach into unauthorized API's. Google has done that in the past and gotten away with it. They used the proximity sensor to detect when they were near the user's ear for their search app. In my reading of it, Apple is implying that this is what the Google app does, and seemingly wants you to connect those dots to the other three apps.
If it is the case that they are reaching into unofficial API's, then Apple had every right to deny that application. What I still don't have an answer for is why was GV Dialer approved and later pulled?
[1] http://www.joyent.com/joyeurblog/2009/08/03/why-apple-probab...)
I mean you could use both the Google Voice Voicemail and the AT&T voicemail, right?
Yes, they're certainly stretching the meaning of "prevent" there.
From a user experience perspective, this means that some fraction of users will be confused, annoyed, or downright furious that they now have two completely disconnected ways of making calls, recieving messages, listening to voicemails, etc. I think that's what bothers Apple about it.
Maybe you do, but can you guarantee that every potential GV user does? Of course not. This is what I mean by "some fraction of users". That fraction is unknown, but as GV creates a significantly different parallel method of accomplishing core phone functions, it is quite plausible that users with an imperfect understanding of how it works and why would suffer as described--for instance, a user who does not understand why his voicemails might show up in two different places. While it is true that it is ultimately the user's responsibility to understand the software he is using, this potentially impacts the core functionality of Apple's device, so it would be only natural for Apple to want to consider it carefully.
Apple's point is completely bullshit about confusing users because only users specifically seeking this functionality will have it.
Does not follow. Users who specifically seek to purchase (say) Microsoft Office are entirely capable of being confused, annoyed, or infuriated by it. The same can be said of most software, hardware, and machines in general. Have you ever seen someone try to push a pull door or pull a push door?
Yes, they're certainly stretching the meaning of "prevent" there.
Then honestly, buy a phone you have control over.
Are you serious? You couldn't possibly be smarter than Apple! And, since you pay $299+ to effectively rent your device, because of the DMCA, you're out of luck.
Duplicate phone functionality: Let the user decide which number they want to dial from by changing the Settings on the iPhone and thus making the iPhone capable of making and recieving the phones calls from either AT&T and Google.
Voicemail: Let both AT&T and Google store the voicemails at their own servers and push them down to iPhone.
SMS issue: Solution is same as voicemail. Let the user decide which number they want to send the SMS from, and let both Google and AT&T deliver the SMS to the iPhone Messages app.
This solution will allow for flexibility for both the users and the service providers.
This seems to call for a parody video of Pinky and the Brain working as App Store app reviewers.
(Apologies to readers too young to get the reference.)
We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted.
No wonder complaints are so common.