ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King
Home / News & Blogs / Between the Lines

The Google Voice app scandal: is Apple losing control over the iPhone?

By | August 24, 2009, 3:00am PDT

I was out of the loop last week when Apple, AT&T and Google all answered Washington’s questions surrounding the (apparent) rejection of the Google Voice app for the iPhone. Over the weekend, I had a chance to do some reading on what had gone down and, more importantly, the official statements from the three companies.

I couldn’t believe what I was reading.

Google’s statement didn’t say much because most of the good stuff was redacted. AT&T’s statement was brief, mostly repeating what it had previously said, that it had nothing to do with the fate of the Google Voice app for the iPhone. But it was Apple’s statement that was most interesting - and not because it offered the best insight into what happened with this controversial app.

Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I’m a big Apple fan - but this time, I cannot sit here and defend the company. The answers to the questions from the Federal Communications Commission were so vague and misleading that I couldn’t believe they came from a company that prides itself on launching game-changing, cutting-edge technology. Consider some excerpts from Apple’s official answers - with my emphasis on keywords and phrases:

The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience…

It appears to alter? In all this time, Apple hasn’t been able to determine if the app alters the iPhone experience? I might argue that the app - and so many others in the app store - actually enhances the iPhone user experience. In fact, one of the things that actually sets the iPhone apart from other smartphone copycats is the app experience.

In its answers, the company points out that it “spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone” and goes on to point out how Google’s app “replaces” some of Apple’s phone features.

I’ll give them that one. They developed a breakthrough product and they want to make sure that the value of the product isn’t diminished by an app. But the iPhone has become bigger than just the phone itself. The iPhone is the whole package. It’s the apps that make the iPhone experience what it is (just watch Apple’s commercials) and Google Voice is just another option on ways to make calls. It doesn’t replace the need for the phone service on the device.

By now, Apple should know this. But, its answers imply that it still has a lot of unanswered questions about the app, Google and VoIP technology.

I also kind of cringed when the company engaged in some fear-mongering, raising privacy concerns about the iPhone Contacts on Google’s servers and saying that “these factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering.”

Still pondering? Pondering? I can picture it now: Steve Jobs, sitting in a leather chair wearing a Hugh Hefner-like house robe, puffing on a pipe with his hand on his chin, looking like he’s weighing the the meaning of life. That’s how one ponders. I would expect a company like Apple to study, research or - gasp - just ask more questions so it can quit pondering and figure out once and for all if there actual privacy issues or if the app actually alters or just appears to alter the iPhone experience.

And then, once it’s determined that, then it can figure out whether that makes the app worthy of rejection.

As for the role of AT&T, Apple was clear that it acted alone and did not consult with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice App, yet it goes on to note that there is a provision in the Apple-AT&T deal that “obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T’s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T’s permission.”

From the way I understand it, Google Voice is not a VoIP app. VoIP - just by its name - involves transmitting a voice call over the Internet. Skype is VoIP. Vonage is VoIP. Apple says it “does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application.”

It doesn’t know? Did anyone at Apple ask anyone at Google? I’m sure the Googlers who built Google Voice, the iPhone app and submitted it for approval will be more than happy to answer the question - if it’s asked. From where I sit, I’d say that Google Voice is not a VoIP service. Google Voice uses the Internet to initiate the call but the voice transmission itself takes place over the landline or mobile phone’s voice network.

You know what these answers really tell me about Apple? It tells me that the company is threatened by Google Voice but now has to backpedal on its reasons for rejecting the app, starting with a clarification that the app hasn’t officially been rejected. It also tells me that the company is starting to lose control over iPhone apps, now answering to the government about specific rejections.

After all, all of this is about control over the mighty iPhone - and Apple isn’t about to just let that go. After all, that’s why the Apple partnered with AT&T in the U.S. in the first place: Control. Consider this sentence from Apple’s opening remarks in its answers to the FCC questions:

In the United States, we struck a groundbreaking deal with AT&T in 2006 that gives Apple the freedom to decide which software to make available for the iPhone.

Did you catch that? The deal gives Apple the freedom to decide. It doesn’t give the customers the freedom to decide. It doesn’t give the app developers the freedom to decide. No, it gives Apple the freedom to decide for the consumers and the developers.

But now that the government has come knocking, it could mean that the control - I mean freedom - that Apple has long enjoyed may be short-lived. So, now, we either wait for the government to respond to the ball that’s been thrown back into that court or we wait for Apple to go ahead and just approve that Google Voice app.

I wonder who will blink first.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Between the Lines”

Topics

Apple iPhone, Google Inc., VoIP, AT&T Corp., Apple Inc., App, Google Voice, Smart Phones, Telephony, Consumer Electronics, Personal Technology, Networking, Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger for more than 18 years.

Disclosure

Sam Diaz

Sam Diaz has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger, reporter and editor at ZDNet, the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Fresno Bee for more than 18 years. He's a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a graduate of California State University, Fresno.

146
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: The Google Voice app scandal: is Apple losing control over the iPhone?
homeioy61-24353625465230107210223572813139 5th Nov
szqsdz,good post!
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
freedom
bannedfromzdnetagain Updated - 24th Aug 2009
i still don't get the argument though. isn't it apple's
device/platform/technology? aren't they free to benefit the most from
their accomplishment? aren't they free to protect their business model
of carrier subsidizing from the competition?

if you as a consumer or developer don't like apple's policy aren't you
free to go with the competition? there is plenty of strong and vibrant
competition in the smartphone sector. i would understand the outcry
if apple had a monopoly in this space, so far they have only 13%
marketshare. go with android, web os, symbian or even windows
mobile if you don't like apple's policies.

0 Votes
+ -
Simple consumer protections
terry flores 24th Aug 2009
Part of the answer may be that it's not so much a matter of monopoly as it is consumer protection. How many consumer realize how few rights that they actually have from "purchasing" an iPhone?

So maybe all the controversy will end if/when Apple starts including including simple consumer information to potential buyers, to the effect that the purchaser isn't really purchasing anything permanent, and Apple has complete control over anything that touches the iPhone, including users and developers.

Personally, I'm disappointed by Apple's approach, because the iPhone was well on the way to becoming the next "big thing" in personal computing, just like the IBM PC was. Of course, the big difference was the "open" architecture of the PC, which would have never gained the ubiquity it enjoys today if IBM had kept it "closed" by as many restrictions now hemming in the iPhone. Even as you point out that Apple has only 13% marketshare, it implies that there is still a good chance somebody with an open architecture and a good set of supporting services could come along and unseat the iPhone in a short time.

So Apple has a reason to keep looking over its proverbial shoulder. They are not too mighty to fail at the 11th hour. Look at what happened to Palm, twice.
0 Votes
+ -
vertical model
bannedfromzdnetagain 24th Aug 2009
maybe there should come some kind of disclaimer with buying a
smartphone. why not, clarification is always good. but do you think that
all people know that they can't play their wii games on their newly
purchased ps3 slim? and why is that so? shouldn't that be prohibited in
the name of consumer protection? where is the outcry about that?
0 Votes
+ -
Not quite the same
planruse 24th Aug 2009
You can't play a Wii game on a PS3 because they are not compatible. Apple is stopping you from running compatible apps on their phone. It is like a car manufacturer refusing you to put in a different stereo or change the colour of the paint after you have bought it.
0 Votes
+ -
And for that...
UsernameRequired 24th Aug 2009
...I demand they are punished! How DARE Apple, or any other business
defend they're revenue streams!
0 Votes
+ -
What about free apps?
planruse 24th Aug 2009
How are free apps helping Apples revenue stream? If they are free why can't I put any app I want on there?

How is the Google app taking any revenue from Apple?


0 Votes
+ -
"How is the Google app taking any revenue from Apple?"
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 24th Aug 2009
Google's apps are free and will therefore eat into sales of competing commercial apps that Apple would have earned money by selling.

0 Votes
+ -
@de-void
planruse 24th Aug 2009
Hi, That may be true but they allow people to sell free apps anyway. Who says the competing apps would have charged as well. Maybe Apple should say all apps have a minimum charge similar to what Microsoft is considering. I own an iPhone and wouldn't mind paying a minimum charge.
0 Votes
+ -
De-void, that's all well and good,
UsernameRequired 24th Aug 2009
but Apple, AFAIK, don't sell any 'commercial' apps that perform the same
function. No, the phone app doesn't count.
0 Votes
+ -
oh yeah, they do take revenue!
aleizabar 24th Aug 2009
In the end, Google's actions do take revenue away from Apple's pockets (not necesarily in to Google's pockets) because they leverage their free app through the popular iPhone at no cost.

Later, down the road, once the App is mature enough and popular enough, it can be used by other smartphone users(Google Pnone parhaps?), who, in turn, end up not buying the iPhone, meaning less revenue for Apple.

Google is a monster, and Apple reasonably has to fear them, because, as you know, Apple does not have the advantage nor the interest to develop apps to put on other manufacturers smartphones.

And very painfull lessons have been learned from leveraging other people's interests for free in this industry. If not sure, go ask Xerox (creators of Windows philosophy and the "mouse"), IBM (PC open architechture in Microsoft-IBM deal) or Seattle Computers (creators of the MS-DOS), all of which gave away their most valuable asets to Microsoft and Apple asuming their revenues were not being taken away.
0 Votes
+ -
If they wanted to defend their revenue streams
Michael Kelly Updated - 24th Aug 2009
why did they open the app store to third parties?

Here's the thing: Once Apple decided to open the app store to third parties, they created a marketplace. And once they decided that only apps from the app store can be installed on an iPhone, they created a monopoly for that marketplace. Now that they have this monopoly, that means they have to abide by a different set of laws than if they were not a monopoly, including laws that prevent them from protecting their revenue stream by preventing other products from legally competing.

If they want to protect their revenues, they can either open the iPhone to alternate marketplaces so that they can gain complete control of their own marketplace (since it would no longer be a monopoly), or they can close the marketplace to third parties completely in which case they would no longer fall under anti-trust laws since the iPhone and the app store would be considered a complete product controlled by a single party.
0 Votes
+ -
Monopoly?
aj.redmond@... 24th Aug 2009
Apple has not created a monopoly. They have simply retained the same rights that any business owner has, such as:

a hotel owner does not want a certain guest to frequent his premises.

a grocery store owner does not want a particular customer to be in his store.

a distributor does not want to sell to a particular retailer.

These are free decisions that any business owner should be allowed to do at any time. This does not set up a monopoly. If Apple wanted to set up a monopoly, they would just not open the App Store, not allow third parties to participate and develop its software exclusively.

Furthermore, all developers would sign an agreement before participating in the program. This agreement would spell out the fact that Apple would have last rights of refusal.

0 Votes
+ -
@ajredmond
Yax_to_the_Max 24th Aug 2009
"a hotel owner does not want a certain guest to frequent his premises."

"a grocery store owner does not want a particular customer to be in his store."

"a distributor does not want to sell to a particular retailer."

All your arguments are flawed. The first two deals with vendor to customer relations. While the last one, the distributer (google) wants to sell to the retailer (the Apps Store).
0 Votes
+ -
@aj. redmond: Read what you are saying
rarsa 24th Aug 2009
"a hotel owner does not want a certain guest to frequent his premises."

"a grocery store owner does not want a particular customer to be in his store."

In this case it is not "Their phone" it is the customers phone. When you buy a car from Ford, does that car still belongs to Ford and they can dictate what engine you use? Can you soup up the engine or replace it completely or do you have to ask for permission from Ford?

Of course Ford is interested in you buying their supplies, and protecting their revenue stream. Should they put a special lock on the hood so people don't mess with the engine and affect the "user experience" ?

The fact that in this case Apple has the technical ability to block other apps does not mean that it is right.
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry the App store is not a monopoly.
mlindl 24th Aug 2009
Why?

Because most of the apps on offer there are also on offer on other
sites through other means than the App store.

The App store is not using its dominant position for the iPhone ( a
mere 13% of cellphone market) to keep others out. But it DOES have a
right to control it's platform and the experience of the consumers, as
the DOJ ruled for Microsoft on the IE as a finder crap.

Don't play legalese here, I've never seen much evidence of anyone
understanding much of anything legal.

Just a lot of whining.
0 Votes
+ -
@yax and @rarsa
aj.redmond@... 24th Aug 2009
The essential point you both are missing is that Apple has a right to defend its business assets. And you would have the same right to defend yourself if you felt someone was jeopardizing your business. This is the case whether the relationship is customer to supplier or distributor to retailer. Any business relationship should apply.

There is absolutely no monopoly here. In the U.S., Apple only has about a 13% market share with the iPhone. The market share worldwide is about 4%. So I ask you, where is this monopoly supposed to exist?
0 Votes
+ -
@everybody
Michael Kelly 25th Aug 2009
The iPhone is not a monopoly, nor anything close to it. The iPhone app market IS a monopoly, because it is the only place you can legally purchase iPhone apps. The market they hold a monopoly over is NOT cell phones, but iPhone applications. And this is not an aquired monopoly, this is a vendor forced monopoly. As such, they have to abide by a different set of rules, including forfeiting predatory business practices to "protect their profits".
0 Votes
+ -
@ Michael Kelly
aj.redmond@... 25th Aug 2009
There is no monopoly at the App Store. If a wholesaler decides he doesn't want to distribute a product because it clashes with his business plan or for whatever other reason, should he be accused of a monopoly?

Google, RIM and Palm are going to try to set up the same model as Apple. And they will do the exact same things as Apple to protect their positions.

Stores, whether they be online or real, are proprietary premises to carry on business. And as such, the proprietor has the right to decide who are the merchants and what they sell.

Anybody that has been in business will encounter this sort of thing on an everyday basis. Calling it a monopoly is not correct. If it were, half the clubs in America would have to be shut down.

Now if Apple were a government-sponsored organization, some of the monopoly arguments may have some merit. But Apple is a business and has a right to decide who can play in their sandbox.
0 Votes
+ -
The Apple App Store is NOT a monopoly!
Pete "athynz" Athens 26th Aug 2009
Repeat after me: The Apple App Store is NOT a monopoly. The Apple App Store is NOT a monopoly. The Apple App Store is NOT a monopoly. The Apple App Store is NOT a monopoly. The Apple App Store is NOT a monopoly. The Apple App Store is NOT a monopoly.

Okay, enough of that. Why do I say it is not a monopoly? Because there are web-based apps that the iPhone can use that are not available in the App store. Hence ANOTHER source of apps for the iPhone - and iPod running wifi - other than the Apple store. Here's some links:

http://www.apple.com/webapps/ yeah, okay this one is on Apple's website but NOT through their App store which is a so-called monopoly.

http://www.intomobile.com/2008/02/28/top-10-iphone-web-apps.html hey, check that out - not an Apple web site, and yet there are apps available - legally. Web apps but web apps that work on the iPhone.

http://www.rev2.org/2007/07/02/top-25-web-apps-for-the-iphone/ wow, site number 3 with apps for the iPhone, and yet another source that IS NOT the app store.

Yup THREE different sources for iPhone apps, two of which do not even involve Apple at all.

Yeah, the Apple App Store is such a classic example of a monopoly...
0 Votes
+ -
Of course there is no outcry, Why?
mlindl 24th Aug 2009
Because everybody loves what Apple does but they don't want to pay
for it. They want Apple to be a social welfare company that makes
sure that anybody can do anything with their products without having
to pay for it.

Good analogy on the WII bit.

All this bruhaha is so symptomatic of how Americans have become
these whiney victims. It's disgusting to read articles like this. BUT,
remember, they are written to generate advertising pennies. I doubt
Sam feels this way but that headline grabs attention therefore money.

0 Votes
+ -
If they wanted that kind of freedom
Michael Kelly 24th Aug 2009
they never should have opened the marketplace to outside vendors in the first place. Once they opened that can of worms, they opened the door for free competition, and all the laws and regulations that pertain to that.

Opening the app marketplace to third parties then closing them arbitrarily to specific vendors would be the equivalent of MS disallowing OEMs to install Windows because they also install alternative operating systems.
0 Votes
+ -
So you imply...
UsernameRequired Updated - 24th Aug 2009
that if they chose to stop selling Coca-Cola and its derivative brands,
WalMart would be in the wrong? I agree, it's not the most sensible thing
to do, but hardly something to damn them for. Then, Apple owning the
only store, as far as I can tell, has more to do with quality control. I'm
not saying that it works, or defending that model!

OT: Microsoft mice. Really good except when
the batteries suddenly get low. The power literally just vanishes in a
matter of minutes. What gives?!
0 Votes
+ -
Specious Argument
NameRedacted 24th Aug 2009
The problem with your comment is that if WalMart stopped selling Coca-Cola, you could buy it somewhere else. Only apps sold through the Apple store can be used on an iPhone; Apple is the sole supplier.

This whole thing is about Apple maintaining control over your iPhone even after you've bought it. Interesting how the company that used "1984" in one of its early commercials is now acting a lot like Big Brother.
0 Votes
+ -
That is of course...
UsernameRequired Updated - 24th Aug 2009
a completely fair point! The point I was trying to make was the 'why'. It
was the only example I could think of at the time, not that I paid much
thought to it, and to be honest with you I'm really not that bothered
either way! ;^)
0 Votes
+ -
The App store is a distribution method
mlindl 24th Aug 2009
that works with the iPhone software. Apple is not obliged anymore
than Nokia is to allow any portal to install any app on it's platform.

Man, there is definitely Apple-think and Anybody-else think on these
boards.

Apple is creating new business models. They are doing what Sony,
Microsoft, Nokia, LG and Motorola didn't have the brains to do.

Instead of complain, go compete yourselves! Oh wait, you probably
aren't bright enough either to think this stuff up.

OK, whine.
0 Votes
+ -
Special Ed argument is more like it.
i8thecat 24th Aug 2009
"This whole thing is about Apple maintaining
control over your iPhone even after you've
bought it. Interesting how the company that
used "1984" in one of its early commercials is
now acting a lot like Big Brother."

Um... The App store is just for the iPhone
brainiac, not ALL the phones in ALL the world.
And um... Apple doesn't maintain control over
anyones iPhone after they buy it... They offer
updates and sell apps.

If somone paid a grand for a Legally unlocked
iPhone (check the web, yes bozo, you can
actually buy a legally unlocked iPhone), then
they can do anything they want with it... Use
it on any GSM network (all legal like). If they
got it via an AT&T discount, then they AGREED
to terms of service with AT&T for 2 years. but
after 2 years, they can take that same phone
and use it on a different carriers GSM
network... (All legal like)

Regardless, they can choose to use the app
store and choose to update their iPhone with
software updates via Apple, they can use it as
it came out of the box... or they can hack and
tweek with it.. jailbreak it.. do what they
want with it...

Everyone has a choice... This myth that Apple
is controlling everyone and everything is a
fairy tale. Apple isn't forcing anyone to do
anything.. Apple has a store you can buy iphone
Apps at... I hear several other companies are
trying to copy that same app store for the
phones they have. Will that make them Orwellian
companies? Try thinking before you type...
0 Votes
+ -
WHERE do you get this stuff?
matthew_maurice 24th Aug 2009
"Once they opened that can of worms, they opened the door for free
competition?"

Apple did nothing of the sort, the App Store Developer Agreement is a
bullet-proof legal document. If you want to develop iPhone Apps, you
agree to Apple's terms. You violate those terms, and your application
doesn't get to the store.

"Opening the app marketplace to third parties then closing them
arbitrarily to specific vendors?"

Again, simply not true. First, Apple didn't "arbitrarily" do
anything. As Friday's letter shows, they did what they did for a reason,
several actually. Whether the FCC considers that acceptable is another
question. Second, Apple has so far closed the App store to one
"vendor" (I wouldn't consider that the best term; "independent content
provider" is probably more accurate), and that was a guy who had
400+ apps that were aggregating content he didn't have licensing for.
It's the apps Apple has pulled or prevented from release not,
except in that one case, the developers. They are still free to continue
to develop and submit apps again.
0 Votes
+ -
Contracts do not trump anti-trust laws
Michael Kelly 25th Aug 2009
"Bullet-proof contracts" are not bullet-proof if they violate law. Again, the iPhone app store is a vendor-forced monopoly, because it is the ONLY place one can purchase iPhone apps (and no, the iPhone does not need to be a monopoly for the iPhone app store to be a monopoly, so please quit trying to make that argument because it only makes you look ignorant). As such, they have to abide by a different set of laws, regardless of the contract signed by its customers or business partners.

Therefore, if the app store trumps competition in ANY way, then it will be (and IS being, BTW) examined by the FTC for anti-trust violations.
0 Votes
+ -
Who's looking ignorant?
matthew_maurice 25th Aug 2009
"As such, they have to abide by a different set of laws,?" No,
there's just one set of laws that are applicable here, the United
States Code.

"Therefore, if the app store trumps competition in ANY way, then it
will be (and IS being, BTW) examined by the FTC for anti-trust
violations." Wrong again! The FTC's "anti-trust" examination
of Apple, AND Google, was for a potential violation of the Clayton Act
?8 (i.e. U.S.C. 15 ?19) which bans cross-directorships of companies
that do business in the same areas.

It had nothing to do with the App Store, in fact, one could make the
point that Apple's actions RE: GV in the App Store indicate that
Clayton doesn't apply.
0 Votes
+ -
You fail to leave an important piece out of the picture...
ReadWryt (error) 24th Aug 2009
...so what happens when Ford tries to tell you
that you can only put Bridgestone tires on your
car and if you use any other brand you have voided
the warranty? We aren't talking about unlocking
these things, just running legally obtained
working code for using a legitimate service.
0 Votes
+ -
you fail to grasp the picture...
i8thecat Updated - 24th Aug 2009
What happens if Ford decides not to sell
Bridgestone tires and chooses to carry some
other brands?

They are not stopping you from buying
Bridgestone tires someplace else. They are just
not selling them at their stores.

So Apple doesn't have a right to decide what
they will sell at their store? I don't get it..
The iPhone is not a monopoly, it is competing
in a market... Apple makes an wicked popular
phone that people love. They create a wicked
popular app store, making it easy to find and
buy apps for their phone... And now they
somehow lose say in what they choose to sell in
their own store?

What country do we live in???

I was under the impression that this is the
USA... Not the Nazi occupied USA...
0 Votes
+ -
Agree
aleizabar 24th Aug 2009
Google wants to leverage its app with the iPhone so they can go sell it to other smartphone users down the road, rendering the iPhone less atractive. Apple has inteligently grasped Google's intentions and, since the FCC is now involved, is playing the diplomacy card as a way of saying: "thanks, but, no thanks".

Google goes to Apple, and not other smartphone vendors (so far) because in no other phone is the apps usage so extensive and evident as it is on the iPhone.

I am not an Apple fan and I gess I'll never be, but it seems clear to me that Google want's a free ride here and Apple will likely (that might be what Mr. Jobs is pondering) pay a price.

Businesswise, is straight forward and fair. Apple has to protect itself.

Couldn't agree more with your comment.
0 Votes
+ -
what % of buyers
gkrwc 9th Sep 2009
want any additional applications at all ?
Is it some kind of money threat ? Profits ?
Wanting control ( wanting meaning " lacking "
control in this context we have enough control freaks in this universe ! )
All apps have the statement " this can?t be changed
or altered or used for some other purpose ? "
Buy a car you can change it in any way you like
adding any thing you want , why the difference
with electronics ?
0 Votes
+ -
freedom !!
wez@... 16th Sep 2009
Forgive me, but weren't Apple one of the people
whining about Microsoft's embedding of Internet
Explorer with Windows a few years back. Going
on your argument Apple were way out of line for
this. Let's just re-write that sentence above
shall we, but put Microsoft where Apple is.
Read it now, do you see why you don't get the
argument yet?

Isn't it Microsoft's platform/technology -
aren't they free to benefit the most from their
accomplishment. Aren't they free to protect
their business model....
0 Votes
+ -
its rather a good thing
Quebec-french 24th Aug 2009
no technologie suppliers should have any right over what
you do with your device ...period ...


0 Votes
+ -
Apple hypocrisy at work again.
xuniL_z 24th Aug 2009
While Apple claims they will only allow applications that keep the "look and feel" of their own UI, they develop seriously buggy apps for Windows, just because they can, that have no appreciation for keeping with the windows look and feel.

Apple and Jobs are hypocrites and opportunists.


If this is not a monopoly, ipod/itunes is and shutting off the Palm Pre from iTunes is a great example of how ruthless and opportunistic (that is in the way con men would rip off your Grandmother promising services with money down and disappearing).


Apple's MO is to watch each potential market (this is not my words, but from Apple) and only enter if they see potential. They never create a market.
What they really do is study a market that is taking off the way a criminal would study a bank, to find it's weaknesses and any holes in it's safeguards, and to find out everything they can about each company involved in the given market and their legal obligations, then they set out to exploit those weaknesses and work those legal obligations to their favor, the way a wolf tracks down it's prey.


Apple is an abomination to the IT industry and should be under close watch by the new Obama AT regulators the way Google is currently.
I'm sure they are and they will find that it's not the same as it was under 8 years of Bush.

Christine Varney who heads up that department is licking her chops on Google and has stated that MS is NOT on her radar, as she feels they are not a threat.
I'm sure she is watching Apple very closely.
It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when"

HA HA HA HA!!!
0 Votes
+ -
And Ballmer is the model of honesty and straight talking?!
UsernameRequired Updated - 24th Aug 2009
Get a grip man! Wow, your underpants are all twisted up aren't they!?
You'll be saying that Palin was more upfront than Biden (or vice versa).
Fanboi?

(Wow, ZDNet censoring is STRONG! - I put p a n t i e s first and it
was all asterisked out...)
0 Votes
+ -
Correct. When compared to Jobs, then Ballmer is as you said....
xuniL_z 24th Aug 2009
Nothing is "twisted up" here pal, but I can tell by your response it sure got your tightie whiteies in a bunch.

When I say something like this, it reflects, first of all, the truth (every read a biography of Jobs that he hasn't been able to get removed from the public domain? ) and secondly, it is in response to all of the Mac fanbois who've talked the ABM talk all of their days.

I've never seen a bunch of people so devoted to a mechanical device with electronics and software. Ever read a David Morganstein blog?
He may as well just write: Apple, GOOD....Microsoft, BAD as that is what his blogs amount to in content. Either that or he has many that should be titled "My First and only Love....my Mac".
That's along with Sam here, and Robin Harris and a number of other Apple worshipers that blog here....if you can call it that.
And their readers are right there with them, ready to defend King Jobs at any mention of Apple in a negative light. In fact, as NZ has pointed out so many times, they get their feathers ruffled if an Apple blog is not 110% glowing praise.
It's funny more than anything to watch.

Yeah, censorship is strong here, but they will let me type Jobs is an ass.


wink
0 Votes
+ -
Did you even read your crap prior to posting?
Pete "athynz" Athens 24th Aug 2009
What do you NOT get about the fact that Apple OWNS the server hardware that the iTunes store is on - including the app store, owns the building or buildings the servers are housed in, pays the bills on those buildings, pays for the maintenance on those buildings and those servers, owns the iTunes software, spent millions on R&D on the iPhone/ iPod, spent the money paying the programmers, engineers, researchers, marketers, the media companies for the license to sell the content they do, and spent the time to put all of this together. IS THAT CONCEPT SO VERY HARD FOR YOU PEOPLE TO COMPREHEND?!?!?!?!

And there is this familiar little whiny complaint from the Pre users... If this is not a monopoly, ipod/itunes is and shutting off the Palm Pre from iTunes is a great example of how ruthless and opportunistic (that is in the way con men would rip off your Grandmother promising services with money down and disappearing).

NO, the app store is NOT a f'ing monopoly - it is a store. A store that specializes in the sale of a very specific product which is the apps that work with the iPhones and iPod touches. So you whining about how "oh wah! the app store is the only place to get apps for the iPhone... Apple sucks." is really lame and is really old. Yeah, they locked the Pre out - and STILL Palm makes the hack to get back into iTunes... Why the he11 should the Pre be allowed to sync with iTunes? Did Palm purchase a license to be allowed to? Obviously not if Apple locked the Pre out. And if Palm was depending on access to the iTunes store to boost the sales of the Pre, then the Pre deserves to fail! And one other thing - tell me what other smartphone or device (non-Apple) is allowed to sync with iTunes or is even able to sync with iTunes? Any WM smartphones? No? How about Blackberry devices? Not them either? Android smartphones? No? What about those running Symbian? What, not those either? Wow, you know it sounds like the ONLY devices allowed to sync with iTunes are the devices that were designed by Apple TO sync with iTunes - iPods and iPhones...

Apple's MO is to watch each potential market (this is not my words, but from Apple) and only enter if they see potential. They never create a market.

Sounds like good business sense to me. Why would one take risks if the potential is not there? And it looks like Apple is batting 1,000 on that MO... look at the success of the iPods which have completely revolutionized the portable media market. And their success with the iPhone. And the whole App Store concept... it looks like just about every other smartphone provider is jumping on the "App Store" bandwagon...

What they really do is study a market that is taking off the way a criminal would study a bank, to find it's weaknesses and any holes in it's safeguards, and to find out everything they can about each company involved in the given market and their legal obligations, then they set out to exploit those weaknesses and work those legal obligations to their favor, the way a wolf tracks down it's prey.

And there is NO other business that does things like this? There is NO other business that does underhanded and/or shady things... oh, wait there is Microsoft... Didn't Bill steal the original Mac OS and make it Windows? Wasn't Microsoft the subject of several anti-trust lawsuits? And look at Palm with the hacks to sync with iTunes... that is shady and underhanded. Actually if you want a good example of a sahdy and underhanded criminal company look no further than the failed Enron Co. or that Bernie Madoff jacka$$ who bilked people for millions on his ponzi scheme. next to them, Apple looks like a freaking saint of a company.

While Apple claims they will only allow applications that keep the "look and feel" of their own UI, they develop seriously buggy apps for Windows, just because they can, that have no appreciation for keeping with the windows look and feel.

This is the ONLY thing I actually agree with you on... to a point. There is nothing in your post that says that Apple had promised to make a windows-compatible app that conforms to the look and feel of XP, Vista, or 7... All I can say is if you don't like those apps then use an alternate product - there are others you know.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh yeah... you read, but didn't comprehend.
kaizoman 24th Aug 2009
You are an overly verbose poster a bully and don't get it to boot.

The issue here isn't what Apple does and doesn't own. The issue is what is and isn't appropriate for Apple to be doing under communications regulation and the law. The FCC is most likely considering a regulation overhaul in the wireless space and wants to look at this example to understand: a) Why are so many people upset? and b) Did Apple do something that was anti-competitive?

Depending on how the FCC views Apples answer there may be regulation change, or the FCC could hand things over to the SEC if they think Apple stepped way out of line.

From an systems development stand point Apple opened itself to this sort of scrutiny and responsibility when they made a proprietary platform for the distribution of applicaitons to the iPhone and iTouch and then created a system of licensing to anyone for a subscription fee to developers. They basically opened their doors and said "come on in" to any developer. This openness is what has made the app store what it is today.

Last point Apple has a dominating market share in the mobile app space. This puts them on the target board as the big company on the block. The FCC will scapegoat them to implement regulatory change across the wireless industry because that is just how government regulation works.
0 Votes
+ -
You need to learn something about Federal regulatory agencies.
matthew_maurice 24th Aug 2009
Neither the FCC nor the SEC do anything about anti-competitive
practices. Hell, for most of it's existence the FCC has harbored and
developed anti-competitive practices, try starting a competing cable
television company someplace-not gonna happen. The SEC regulates
securities trading and reporting. They couldn't care less about the iPhone
unless Apple starts wraps them in stock certificates or lies about how
many it sells on the 10Q/K forms.
0 Votes
+ -
I comprehend it, but apparently you do not.
Pete "athynz" Athens 25th Aug 2009
You are an overly verbose poster a bully and don't get it to boot.

A bully? Me? That's freakin sweet! Oh and the sentence should read: "You are an overly verbose poster, (comma) a bully, (comma) and don't get it to boot." I'm also the local grammar police... Seriously I don't see where I bullied anyone in my post - not that I haven't before but not that particular post... I pointed out some facts and if that is bullying then by all means I'll take that bully label with pride... happy

The issue here isn't what Apple does and doesn't own. The issue is what is and isn't appropriate for Apple to be doing under communications regulation and the law. The FCC is most likely considering a regulation overhaul in the wireless space and wants to look at this example to understand: a) Why are so many people upset? and b) Did Apple do something that was anti-competitive?

Ownership IS the issue here... break it down to basics here - Apple owns a store and in that store they sell items that are compatible to their products. In their brick and mortar stores they sell their hardware and software as well as third party compatible software and accessories that they approve to be in that store. The ONLY difference between the brick and mortar retail store and the app store is that the app store is online. And as owner they DO HAVE THE RIGHT to regulate what is in that store. It is just that simple, like it or not.

Depending on how the FCC views Apples answer there may be regulation change, or the FCC could hand things over to the SEC if they think Apple stepped way out of line.

From an systems development stand point Apple opened itself to this sort of scrutiny and responsibility when they made a proprietary platform for the distribution of applicaitons to the iPhone and iTouch and then created a system of licensing to anyone for a subscription fee to developers. They basically opened their doors and said "come on in" to any developer. This openness is what has made the app store what it is today.

And with that system of licensing they also added the caveat of being allowed to reject an app if it duplicates the functionality of any of the pre-installed Apple iPhone OS software. So they can allow an app or reject it as they see fit and really they do not have to give a reason for it. Yes Apple does indeed owe a very large amount of the success with the 3G and 3GS iPhones to the app store - which BTW was NOT in existence when the original iPhone first came out...

Last point Apple has a dominating market share in the mobile app space. This puts them on the target board as the big company on the block. The FCC will scapegoat them to implement regulatory change across the wireless industry because that is just how government regulation works.

That is about the only thing I really agree with you on. Apple is dominating the mobile app market, so much so that others such as Blackberry, Palm, and Android are in the process of or already have developed their own app store versions. And this very success does indeed paint a very large target on Apple's back - and our government loves a good scapegoat. The problem with that is all of these whiny-a$$ people will make the government act and when it does it will ruin everything. It won't help innovation at all, in fact it will open the door to even tighter government regulation of not only online marketplaces but also tighter regulations on personal use of the internet. But go ahead and keep whining to Big Brother to take away something else. You call ME a bully - just wait until the government steps in and tells you what you can and cannot do on the net.
0 Votes
+ -
You must not actually own an iPhone or iPod Touch
baileysc 26th Aug 2009
The AppStore is the ONLY place you officially get software for your iPhone. I can go anywhere and get software for my Mac, PC or Linux machine or any other phone, but the AppStore is the only place you can officially get software for the iPhone. Even for the music on an iPod you can always get the music from another source, but for the iPhone Apple maintains full control.

I'm hoping that the result of this is that all iPhones have to be jailbroken and Google can setup their own AppStore for the iPhone.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually I've owned my iPhone 3G for a year now
Pete "athynz" Athens 27th Aug 2009
and YOU apparently did not check any of those links I provided or even read the majority of the post.

For the record baileysc, I DO indeed own an iPhone 3G 16GB black running OS 3.0 jailbroken, and I've made my own themes for it as well - mainly icon and dock replacements, nothing at all like some of the more elaborate themes like iNav or iNitsua... those are really awesome themes. I've also downloaded several apps from Cydia, Icy, and the Rock store (for the intellescreen app). Want further proof? I'll take pics of my iPhone and send them to you.

Those web pages I linked to? The ones with the web apps? You know, the ones you very likely did not even check prior to your post? They DO run on the iPhone WITHOUT a jailbreak - they run on an unmodified stock right out of the box iPhone. They do not however install on the iPhone, they use Safari. But the point I was making - which apparently you completely missed BTW - was that the Apple App Store is NOT the only place to get iPhone apps legally. So the whole "Apple's App Store is a monopoly" theory amounts to nothing.

Having said that, I do not like the restrictiveness of the App Store - I would like to see it more open, I would like to see alternatives to Safari (such as Opera, Firefox, and Chrome), iTunes, and other built-in apps on the iPhone. I would like the see the ability to apply different themes built into the OS, I would like to see things that are on Cydia now being Apple authorized to be on the iPhone. What I do NOT want to see is even more government involvement into private businesses...
0 Votes
+ -
Wow, sorry to get you That upset.
xuniL_z 26th Aug 2009
phew, take it easy man. I didn't insult your ancestory or anything did I?


I said ipod/itunes is a monopoly, not the app store. You responded as though I said app store.

Here's what I think. Apple would be nowhere without Windows. Apple had every chance to gain the market Microsoft did, in fact they had over 10 years before MS was on their own to do it in, but they couldn't see their way past making 5000.00 desktop machines. Not exactly brilliant business.
If it weren't for MS keeping Office for Mac alive in the mid 90s, Apple would be dead now. That is the opinion of a vast number of industry watchers. Apple may have had a few billion in the bank, but when the last of your enterprise customers bail on you, and they would have w/o Office for Mac, that money is pretty much worthless. MS saved their asses and on top of that, their technology sharing agreements were not all one sided. Apple got a lot of good technology out of it. MS wrote all of Apple's development platforms from the beginning. AppleSoft Basic was designed and written by Microsoft. And they supplied them with other development tools over the years along with general technology. Apple was never really good with Software, that's why they used DARPA technology (paid for by American taxpayers to the tune of multiple Billions of dollars). BSD came out of DARPA. The processors they used..DARPA. Their GUI xerox PARC. And Jobs stole away the key developers to come and build the gui for him. Like I said, he is a major opportunist. The best thing about Leopard was open source code they "borrowed" that gave them kernel development advantages.
Leopard was rushed out half backed as much or moreso than Vista.
Snow Leopard is every much as bit of a Fix of Leopard than windows 7 is a "fix" of Vista.
Apple was on MS tail through that time, not ahead of them. That's why Jobs got up at WWDC and started to trash Vista and thereafter every chance he got to do so publically. He spent an hour or more at WWDC '06 just trashing Vista.
Leopard was not talked about nearly as much as it could have been due to that, and it looke more like Vista than a new Apple interface.
And vista does not look like Tiger.
Jobs has been scared silly of Vista from since it's beta days when he saw the potential and what was really under the hood that is great code and technologically advanced to OS X, especially in the area of security. Everyone is willing to admit that, at this piont. OS X has no built in security whereas Vista has many layers of security baked into the OS making it more secure.

But the point is, Apple would still be a small company and the ipod would have gone NOWHERE w/o Windows. Because without itunes for Windows, there would be no reason for 95% of all ipod owners to buy one.
If Microsoft could run their OS like Apple runs their iPhone OS and shut off all Apple applications, as you well know, Apple would be sunk. So would Google and everyone else.

So to control who can use itunes on Windows and who can't is pushing it if you ask me and the DoJ will be looking at that.

Jobs is a real ahole in real life and karma has a way of catching up with them.



0 Votes
+ -
App Store is a monopoly
baileysc 26th Aug 2009
I don't agree with everything the person you replied to said, but he is dead on with the AppStore.

It is the only official way to load software on the iPhone. Any other phone can get software from whatever source they choose, but the iPhone is only supposed to get software from the AppStore. And by default, when Apple removes an application from the AppStore they automatically remove it from the iPhone (without any refund whatsoever)!

I'm personally amazed that as many companies developed software for the iPhone as have considering their business model makes it such a pain and not profitable in the least (with some rare exceptions). They basically say that the consumer is too stupid to pick what applications they want to run on their phone, so Apple has to do it for them.

If Apple jailbreaks all its phones going forward and agrees to support jailbroken phones, then they can do whatever they want to with the AppStore, but as it stands it is a rip off.
0 Votes
+ -
Ummm no, it's not
Pete "athynz" Athens Updated - 28th Aug 2009
re-read my post. Or to make it easier - since the post you replied to was NOT the post I put those links in:

http://www.apple.com/webapps/ yeah, okay this one is on Apple's website but NOT through their App store which is a so-called monopoly.

http://www.intomobile.com/2008/02/28/top-10-iphone-web-apps.html hey, check that out - not an Apple web site, and yet there are apps available - legally. Web apps but web apps that work on the iPhone.

http://www.rev2.org/2007/07/02/top-25-web-apps-for-the-iphone/ wow, site number 3 with apps for the iPhone, and yet another source that IS NOT the app store.

Yup THREE different sources for iPhone apps, two of which do not even involve Apple at all.

Check them out for yourself. iPhone web-based app that use safari true but iPhone apps nonetheless... Kills that whole "Apple App Store is a monopoly" argument.

And for the record NO I DO NOT LIKE how restrictive the App Store is... but Apple DOES have the right to regulate what is on their own servers - and since the App Store resides on their servers, Apple has the right to regulate the App Store.
0 Votes
+ -
You Are a Big Talker Not A Researcher
kaizoman 24th Aug 2009
Read something before you post so I don't have to post responses to other crazy people that respond to you.

If you can't find the time to understand the magnitude and scope of the issues at hand, keep your fingers off the keyboard.

~Public Service Announcement
0 Votes
+ -
Go ahead and bully him! Hypocrite!
Pete "athynz" Athens 25th Aug 2009
Way to go there kaizoman! Trolling both sides!

Not sure of your country of origin or what county you are in but right or wrong everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and on this forum they have the right to air that opinion - not matter if you and I agree with that opinion or not. So please refrain from telling others not to post or regulate what they post because it may be an inconvenience to you.
0 Votes
+ -
I see.
xuniL_z 26th Aug 2009
And as a researcher yourself, how do you find the time to come on zdnet.com?
You just drop in now and then with a self motivated need to "straighten out" people's posts?
Even when they are purely opinion and do not purport to be fact?

And apparently you feel since you are safely cloaked in the anonymity of the internet you can say things you wouldn't have the brass to do in person.

That much is obvious.

Well you are welcome to post to me as you wish, just as I have a right to post here as long as I meet the terms of use, which btw do not require any researcher prerequisites.
But unless you just want your posts deleted, you will refrain from making asinine comments.
Got it?

0 Votes
+ -
RE: The Google Voice app scandal: is Apple losing control over the iPhone?
homeioy61-24353625465230107210223572813139 5th Nov
szqsdz,good post!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix