The recent rejection of Google Voice from the App Store, by Apple, was rather controversial. Even die-hard Apple fans seem to be outraged by it, and many suspect that AT&T is behind it. It wasn't particularly explained as to why the application was rejected, but a Google spokesperson simply said that it wasn't approved. It seems consumers aren't the only ones a bit troubled by this; according to Wired, the FCC is now getting involved, and has sent letters to both Apple and AT&T (and even Google, to get their explanation) demanding them to reveal what exactly happened.The new chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, expressed his unhappiness with the actions of the two companies, though he didn't actually explain what would happen on the part of his organization. In a press statement, he said, "Recent news reports raise questions about practices in the mobile marketplace. The Wireless Bureau's inquiry letters to these companies about their practices reflect the Commission's proactive approach to getting the facts and data necessary to make the best policy decisions on behalf of the American people." Of course, the FCC isn't just interested in Google Voice alone, but rather the other applications that have been rejected, and whether AT&T has played any part. You can find their letter to Apple here, and their letter to AT&T here.
As you'll be aware, Apple has made many rather questionable decisions regarding applications, and they seem to tie in with AT&T each time; the FCC is interested in this, as Wired points out, with their letter saying, "Are there any terms in AT&T's customer agreements that limit customer usage of certain third-partyapplications? If so, please indicate how consumers are informed of such limitations and whether such limitations are posted on the iTunes website as well. In general, what is AT&T's role in certifying applications on devices that run over AT&T's 3G network? What, if any, applications require AT&T's approval to be added to a device? Are there any differences between AT&T's treatment of the iPhone and other devices used on its 3G network?"
The FCC isn't stopping here; they've asked Google about the application which they've denied too, wanting explanations on this also. The latest date that the replies can be submitted by the three companies is August 21, and, unfortunately for the trio, the feds will turn away answers that are secretive. However, according to Wired, they can allow some information to be kept under seal.
It's certainly good for consumers that this is happening, and be sure to keep an eye on the Neowin homepage around the deadline date for a development on this.
I said Apple less because it was at&t's doing that got Google Voice denied.
Because Apple actually deserve it, and they have gotten away with their shady business practises far too long?
The circle is now complete. Carry on with your shilling.
It's not like the cases are over the same thing either.
I said Apple less because it was at&t's doing that got Google Voice denied.
I'm pretty sure that Apple had a lot to do with this. AT&T might not like it, but ultimatley Apple has a say in whether to reject or accept due to the amount of clout they hold over the iPhone on AT&T i.e. threatening to cease the exclusivity of the iPhone on AT&T through some dispute (depending on what their agreements were intially).
Not always. Censorship in the US is because of the "fellas' at the feakin' FCC".
In this case, yes... I"m all for invesgating some Apple and AT&T bull****.
In this case, yes... I"m all for invesgating some Apple and AT&T bull****.
Censorship in the USA was because of a nice guy named Corbis (sp?)... look it up
So it's good if it's against apple, but not when the recipient is MS? Biased much?
Naive much? Each scenario was utterly and entirely different. Microsoft was ludicrously alleged of being anti-competitive for bundling their own product; Apple is being anti-competitive by accepting one VoIP product (Skype) and denying another (Google Voice).
If you weren't biased yourself, you wouldn't have posted whilst oblivious to the details surrounding each.
Annnddd the Federal Communications Commission went against Microsoft when exactly?
Thanks for reading my comment as a anti-apple :-/ WHICH IT WASN'T.
More pro-openness.
The FCC contacted all 3 parties... Apple, Google, and AT&T, with a query, not a beat down. No complaints have been filed, so there isn't an official query either. (snipped)
Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 02 Aug 2009 - 04:33
If you weren't biased yourself, you wouldn't have posted whilst oblivious to the details surrounding each.
Thats so true..
So it's fine for the EC to censure apple but not MS?
Look at how well Honda is doing because they create better cars than GM. Not because the government said GM has to allow Honda advertising space by forcing them or in other ways.
Look at how well Honda is doing because they create better cars than GM. Not because the government said GM has to allow Honda advertising space by forcing them or in other ways.
Competition is exactly why the FCC is getting involved... there is none... Apple can block and deny any competition from adding "similar" features on the phone.
Also, when you're in a contract, you can just up and leave and go get something else... not with out harsh fees.
Does not compute. Google Voice is the competitor that was kicked out so they couldn't compete with ATT.
You can't do that, not when massive adoption takes place. Thats like saying firefox can't be installed on Windows, because its too similar to Internet Explorer.
I think the problem with you guys understanding this is that you believe it is the consumers choice to put whatever software you want on the phone. When I'm reality it's the Manufacturers options they give to you that you can pick from. This is not Linux. And it's not open. If you want google voice and apple doesn't offer it go get a google phone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevant_market
This isn't a matter of competition between different phones, but between different services (communication). Google as a company/developer are competing against ATT in the this particular market.
The problem of manufacturer choice is a different political argument. In a strict matter of competition though, the FCC isn't stifling it at all here.
ms has every right to forbid firefox to be installed. They just don't. You take that liberty for granted.
No, because that'd be called a monopoly...
on a windows mobile Device I can install opera firefox or ie. I can't do that on the iPhone. Does that make it a monopoly.
The FCC is investigating whether anti-competitive activity is taking place and it appears to be directed mostly at AT&T. Apple's participation in the investigation at this point appears limited to determining what went into their decision to ban the GV applications. In other words, to determine whether AT&T pressured Apple to do this in order to limit Google's competitiveness with AT&T.
Kudos to the FCC. I think this is a fair move to promote competitive behavior and it's certainly a win for consumers and, in the long-term, likely Apple and AT&T.
Make what a monopoly, the iPhone? Opera tossed around the idea of developing a browser for the iPhone, but Apple effectively stated, don't bother. That to me is something that should be looked into. When the competition can't get their product on the mainstream adopted device, thats stifling the compeititon.
No, Microsoft have no right to forbid anything from being installed. A company should be free to provide what they want with their product (IE/EC issue), but what the user does with the product is entirely up to them within the bounds of the law (I.E Copyright).
Do you see car manufacturers forbidding people to install new radios or mods in their cars? No.
That's because you buy a car, but you only buy a license to use software under certain conditions. You analogy needs to be "if you rent a car" in order to be correct. And then the answer is no, you cannot install whatever radio you want, because it's not allowed in the contract you signed.
Rubbish - people don't "rent" ipods or iphones - they BUY them.
Your analogy is like "you buy a car, but you're only allowed to fill the tank with Apple Juice"
Your analogy is like "you buy a car, but you're only allowed to fill the tank with Apple Juice"
I wasn't talking about ipods or iphones, I was talking about Windows.
Errr the "no compete" stuff is exactly what this investigation is about, so yes, the fact you can't get other browsers for the iPhone because they duplicate existing functionality may be a problem and depending on the outcome of this there may be a point in time where Firefox can be installed.
I don't see how your first post makes claims about stiffling competition and then you go on to say it's Apples right to decide who can write what for the platform. I could understand if they had released it as a closed platform, but when the SDK is there then they are surely the ones stiffling competition when the only thing stopping the app existing on the device is the politics in side of the company.
Thats before you get on to the fact that several apps other than googles were pulled recently that had up until now existed on the iPhone but were later deemed to duplicate functionalty. What guarantee is there that Apple won't copy an App developers idea, implement it in the phone and then pull the third party developers app?
I don't see how your first post makes claims about stiffling competition and then you go on to say it's Apples right to decide who can write what for the platform. I could understand if they had released it as a closed platform, but when the SDK is there then they are surely the ones stiffling competition when the only thing stopping the app existing on the device is the politics in side of the company.
Thats before you get on to the fact that several apps other than googles were pulled recently that had up until now existed on the iPhone but were later deemed to duplicate functionalty. What guarantee is there that Apple won't copy an App developers idea, implement it in the phone and then pull the third party developers app?
Okay, that all makes sense to me. I changed my mind.
More like saying Google Chrome can't be installed on Windows
Your example is not helping.
Forbidding, no, but manufacturers have the right to refuse to pay to fix problems that are normally covered by their warranty if they can prove that any mod is the cause of that problem.
You bet.
1) The iPhone is a Hardware platform too.
2) An EULA is not law, if it's found to be anti-competative, which is what the FCC is looking into, it's irrelevant.
Forbidding, no, but manufacturers have the right to refuse to pay to fix problems that are normally covered by their warranty if they can prove that any mod is the cause of that problem.
Your comment is not helping.
What does warranty have to do with this topic? Nothing, if a customer wants to Mod their iPhone they're perfectly entitled to at their own risk. The issue here is that Apple is supressing competition on the iPhone platform by selectively restricting/refusing apps.
That is not the definition of a monopoly, I wish you arm chair intellectuals really knew half of what you think you do.
as above the two cases are very different and thus people are entitled to different stances or opinions on what is right and wrong. I fail to see the problem.
Yes, because Microsoft bundling an (Arguably essential nowadays) application is similar to Microsoft actively preventing rival applications from being installed.
Actually it is, when you block or make it impossible for the competition to spread/sell their products, thats a monopoly.
2) An EULA is not law, if it's found to be anti-competative, which is what the FCC is looking into, it's irrelevant.
Forbidding, no, but manufacturers have the right to refuse to pay to fix problems that are normally covered by their warranty if they can prove that any mod is the cause of that problem.
Your comment is not helping.
What does warranty have to do with this topic? Nothing, if a customer wants to Mod their iPhone they're perfectly entitled to at their own risk. The issue here is that Apple is supressing competition on the iPhone platform by selectively restricting/refusing apps.
The crux of the matter is that even though you may own the [car | device], it still doesn't become a free-for-all after that; the manufacturer still has a say, which contradicts what was being given as an example in the message I was responding to.
Couldn't draw the parallel, huh?
Hey FCC, while your at it, ask ATT where my MMS and tethering is...
Last edited by shockz on 01 Aug 2009 - 02:38
When it is a standard feature on other phones and not allowed on a higher paying phone and plan then it is a problem.
It is a problem but it is not illegal.
1. An agreement
2. which unreasonably restrains competition
3. and which affects interstate commerce.
A Section 2 violation has 2 elements:[18]
(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
(2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
It looks like both sections might apply in this case.
Google's main income is advertising, isn't it?
I don't have one. Let me see how it is illegal.
So you are in favour of the reproach of MS by the EC as well?
Weren't you staunchly against the EC taking action? But when it comes to apple you are zealous?
Yep. For precisely that reason. What they're accusing Microsoft of doing Apple does as well, but for some reason they don't get even a glance. iPod/iTunes/iTMS is way more of a "closed loop" than Windows/IE.
Fixed
Maybe Google can put some code into their Android phone's that detect if you are trying to call an iphone and refuses to make the call!
Or better still, everytime it calls an iphone, it could make use of one of the many software flaws in the iphone to automatically install the google voice app
Or better still, everytime it calls an iphone, it could make use of one of the many software flaws in the iphone to automatically install the google voice app
That would be so sweet. Poetic justice.
So, Microsoft would never restrict like Apple does.
Really now..
Tried releasing your own home brewed software for XBox 360 lately?
Tried releasing your own home brewed software for XBox 360 lately?
Yeah, and why not develop a new operative system?
Your analogy is wrong, daPhoenix.
Tried releasing your own home brewed software for XBox 360 lately?
If you like, you may do so. It's the same price to be able to do so, as a matter of fact, as the iPhone fee. But you can also play whatever games you want, not just the ones offered. I've haven't heard of Microsoft blocking anyone's XNA game from running on a 360. (Zune is the same...) Will Apple let me e-mail my unapproved app to a friend so he can install it?
Last edited by GreyWolfSC on 01 Aug 2009 - 13:47
Indeed but my comment was aimed at the person who said Microsoft would never restrict when infact they do - they approve every single program you can run on your 360. If they do not want to publish it, you can't do anything about it.
What if I want to publish a rape simulator on 360? Not going to happen because Microsoft won't allow it.
What if I want to publish a rape simulator on 360? Not going to happen because Microsoft won't allow it.
As I said, there is nothing to prevent you from self-publishing. It was my third sentence. The Marketplace is only for selling your games on XBL and the community approves them, not Microsoft.
Apple should, as another user said here, explain in detail why they are rejecting apps.
Of course, there is no end to the bias on this site.
Given they were looked at for different breaches it's far from hypercritical for people to support MS in their case and Apples in another given anyone with the ability to formulate an opinion would be able to come to different opinions on each case based on the supposed anti trust breaches. I'm quite sure a lot of the users here have based their stance on more than just the company involved or committee doing the review.
Unless you can correct or show me otherwise, I'm quite sure MS's antitrust cases never involved MS having a software review process that could force competitors software not to be installed on Windows because the app duplicated functionality MS already provided.
Or perhaps everyone here is just a MS fanboy that is incapable to looking at the bigger picture.
Apple has been real Nazi's when it comes to the apps it allows through its store, but without any real rhyme or reason to how they determine what makes it through. Shake the baby anyone? No? How about a $1000 picture of a diamond? Oh, you want pda net to tether your phone? We're thinking you should just have to pay us an extra $30 bucks instead (still mad at T-mobile for that one too). I could go on and on about this, but enough digression. Since the iphone is so popular, a lot of people are upset when they feel like they are being denied a good, usefull app for no apparent reason. Hence, they are happy that the FCC would want to investigate to protect the consumer.
I am glad that Apple and AT&T will have to justify their actions. I also disagree with the EC's pressure to force MS to include competing browsers with its OS. Oops, guess I'm a hypocrite too.
I think the reactions of everyone has more to do with what does benefit them and what doesn't benefit them. The FCC may influence a change that will lead to more apps and more functionality on my iPhone. A lot of the people cheering this on are Apple customers.
Now, in contrast, the latest stuff on Microsoft doesn't seem to really help me or any of the consumers. So what if a 3rd party browser is pre-installed or there is a selection screen to install it or whatever? The whole thing from the EU is ridiculous, silly, and a complete waist of time.
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=317836614&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=312105516&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=304090799&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=303479393&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=302757136&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=302678135&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=297443759&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=317836614&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=312105516&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=304090799&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=303479393&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=302757136&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=302678135&mt=8
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore...=297443759&mt=8
Those don't work without iTunes installed. You just get a page saying to install the software.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/apple...new_iphone_only
Apple actively reject applications for iTunes, as in any application that may already be in production or on sale by Apple, that is plain anti-competitive and that is what the FCC are looking into. They are using the VOIP app by Google as an example, but have clearly asked for details regarding ALL denied apps and WHY they have been denied. They are going to examine why they are doing this to see if it is anti competitive, which it clearly is. This should be a fun case to watch and could set a huge precedent as to Apple locking their hardware and controlling the software.
MS don't support 3rd party apps, neither do the makers of your PC, be it custom built or mass manufactured, you are free to put on what you like once you have it. Apple on the other hand closely control all their hardware to prevent this. Their argument being they can't support for 3rd party failures.
I can't wait for more on this, and love the fact the FCC have said nope you can't have lanket confidentiality either, loads of docs will be available to read yay!!!!
As an end user, I'd definitely like to see the FCC prevail so that more apps with more functionality are available to me. Trying to compare iPhones and Blackberries to PCs and Macs as far as standards go is comparing apples to oranges. In the personal computing market you basically ONLY have PCs and Macs. The cell phone market is a lot more crowded than this. If Apple and AT&T are going to have to adopt lose standards for 3rd party apps, are all phones going to have to make the same adjustments?
Last edited by Shadrack on 02 Aug 2009 - 18:29
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.