Comment by jackowayed | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackowayed | Hacker News Reader

>For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. 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.

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 think what they're trying to say is that they are abiding by the general principle of not allowing apps that duplicate built-in functionality, because they feel it might negatively impact the user experience of their product. This is a much more defensible (and I think probable) position than that they are singling it out for purely competitive reasons.

I think either/both could be the answer. I see no reason why the first outweighs the second.

> give people the false impression that GV is stealing the phone icon, which an app can't even do

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.

I can see a great many people downloading it and then getting confused for a split second every day between the two and keeping track of what they were using each for. Over time that additional mental fatigue translates into lowered satisfaction with the device. It's similar to the fatigue of maintaining different versions/copies of anything in parallel - code, email inboxes, a story that you've told people about an event.

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.

Apple must think the FCC is staffed by morons. They "don't know" how the application works, but it "prevents" existing iPhone features from working, and they need to "ponder it some more."

The FCC certainly used to be staffed by morons. At least tech morons (the board, I don't know about the employees). We at least have a solid chairman now, lets hope its a sign of the times.

A citation would be helpful here. I am not disputing your claim. But in general, it is easy to disparage someone as a moron when they make decisions you disagree with.

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.

Your response is well said. I didn't add specific examples as to not put too much politics into the discussion.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com