Hacker News Reader

Comment by mbowcock | Hacker News Reader

Does this mean Google Voice will be supported as a native iPhone app?

It isn't clear yet. Google Voice isn't VoIP (at least, not in the same way that Skype is) because you use your carrier's minutes whenever you place a call. That said, AT&T may choose to bundle the two announcements together because they're both examples of them being "open".

Of course, Apple is the one supposedly behind the Google Voice ban, so don't be surprised if Google Voice isn't mentioned at all during tomorrow's event.

In light of the Vonage app which was approved the other day, I don't see what possible objection ATT/Apple could have against the Google Voice application.

If the Vonage app doesn't replace the native dialer, then it's certainly possible that it could have been approved while GV hasn't been.

Remember: it's not an objection to VOIP in general. It's an objection to the replacement of core iPhone functionality.

EDIT: Hey everybody. I'm just repeating what Apple said. The GV announcement said nothing about VOIP, it just said "replacement of core functionality." Thanks.

Remember: it's not an objection to VOIP in general. It's an objection to the replacement of core iPhone functionality.

Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned, but I would have thought that the piece of software in the iPhone that makes it usable as a phone would be closer to "core functionality" than the dialer. VOIP is definitely treading on the former, though how it deals with the latter is obviously a question of interface rather than of protocol.

Conceptualizations of what constitutes core functionality in products and software have become increasingly shallow and less feature focused. I don't know if this is because of a somewhat less "business" driven mindset, or because Apple is absolutely brimming with UI freaks, but the mentality seems to at present be that the imitation of a dialer in software rather than the actual ability to make calls is what is most important to "protect".

I appreciate Apple's attempts maintain integrity in the UI interface but their hysterics over something like this make me wary.

That's not true.

AT&T has always limited iPhone VoIP applications to WiFi to cripple their usefulness. They just announced today that they were extending VoIP apps to 3G, most likely due to pressure from the FCC.

Also, you can't replace the native dialer or any core functions on the iPhone. Google Voice implemented its own dialing interface and was rejected for duplicating the built-in dialing and voicemail functions.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ATT-Extends-VoIP-to-3G-bw-7675...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_voice#Rejection_from_iPh...

I figured that the Google Voice issue would be brought to light with this announcement. But, the Google Voice app should have technically been accepted before 3G Skype calls: it doesn't really use data like Skype does. It seems (I don't have it) to be more of a convenience for the user so that he doesn't have to call his GV number and then dial the number he wants to reach, and instead accesses your address book and dials everything for you.

If this shows anything, it's that Apple is really behind the refusal (so far) of the GV app.

I thought the only reason given for rejecting Google Voice was that it would cause confusion with Apple's dialer? If they did announce Google Voice along with VoIP, there would be some backtracking, I'd imagine.

Did Apple ever explain how the GV dialer was more prone to confusion with Apple's offering than the Skype/everyother voip app one?

I don't think we've actually seen any screenshots of how the GV app was supposed to work.

Well a dialer is just a number pad from where you dial numbers, no? Maybe I misunderstand the objection then.

I assumed that due to Google's special access to the iPhone, the app was a little more far-reaching than the screnshots that are a sibling to you seem to show. That's also what Apple's announcement implied to me.

Google doesn't have special access to the iPhone, they use the same SDK as everyone else with the exception of a couple of private APIs though that's fairly common.

http://daringfireball.net/2008/12/private

Yeah, that's the 'special access' I was talking about. Apple tends to reject other people's apps for using private APIs, but they let Google get away with it.

Actually, only blatant violations are rejected. There are a lot of apps out there that make use of a few private API calls so I wouldn't say that Google has "special access."

screenshots: http://www.iphonefreak.com/2009/03/gv-mobile-google-voice-ip...

Ah, thank you. I never saw those.

Those aren't actually screenshots of Google's Google Voice app, it's one of the third-party ones that has since been pulled.

I have GV Mobile Premium (the one pictured) and like it quite a bit. Having used it I find it hard to belive that someone would be confused between it and the native iPhone dialer - it's just not that similar.

Last I heard [mid-Sept]: Apple said that "Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google." Seems sketchy... [http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10356432-265.html?tag=mnco...]

if/when Apple pulls its' head out of its' a*, maybe.

or maybe Google will punish Apple and not release native app again.

I wasn't sure at first (thought Apple might be taking the heat) but this seems to confirm AT&T's claim that it's Apple that has the problem with Google Voice and not AT&T.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com