Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Wireless, Bad Apple, iPhone, App Store
Is AT&T behind the rejection and removal of Google Voice apps?
In the wake of TJ Luoma's report earlier tonight that the two independent Google Voice applications have been removed from the App Store, Jason Kincaid at TechCrunch says that the official Google Voice app has also been given the shaft. He theorizes that, despite the official Apple line that the apps "duplicate features that come with the iPhone," the real reason the apps were removed was because of squawking from AT&T.While TechCrunch doesn't offer any definitive proof that AT&T is behind the Google Voice blockage, they do cite GV Mobile developer Sean Kovacs' point that Phil Schiller himself, who you may remember from Apple events like Macworld '09 and WWDC, personally approved the GV Mobile app last April. In fact, Kovacs says that Schiller called him to apologize for the delays in getting the app approved.
As TJ said in his post, it's difficult to believe that Apple truly thinks users will be confused by an application that does the same thing as the built-in Phone app when they went out of their way to purchase and download it. Even setting that aside, it's not at all clear exactly what functionality is supposedly being duplicated. If it's the dialer, then that's a poor excuse; lots of other approved apps include dialers, including Skype. If it's the SMS functionality, again, poor excuse, as other apps provide SMS functionality as well.
It's true that Google Voice isn't necessarily as "scary" to AT&T as a true VoIP app like Skype, but some of the Google Voice functions that TechCrunch describes, like free SMS messages and cheaper long distance, certainly do sound like something that would rattle AT&T's cage.
Take into consideration that Skype was approved because it will only work over Wi-Fi, even though there's no technical reason it shouldn't run over 3G. Look at how crippled SlingPlayer is compared to the same app on other phones. Now, Google Voice is dead in the water on the iPhone. What we have is a very clear and disturbing pattern. Applications that provide innovative solutions to users, but which fall outside the bounds of what a traditionally-minded telecommunications company like AT&T considers acceptable, are being either hobbled by arbitrary restrictions like Skype and Sling or blasted out of existence like Google Voice.
Whether it's Apple's fault or AT&T's, it's getting tiresome to see innovative applications like Skype or Google Voice constantly kicked to the curb or kneecapped. Are we headed for an App Store with nothing in it except fart apps? Those, at the very least, don't duplicate any built-in iPhone functionality that I've heard of.
One more thing: who else thinks it's ironic that a company started by a couple of guys who spent lots of time phone phreaking in a garage in the 1970s now kowtows to AT&T and kills apps that help people make cheaper calls?
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Mayan said 12:55AM on 7-28-2009
Why am I not surprised?
Reply
Jash Sayani said 10:40AM on 7-28-2009
Ditto!
BTW, the pic is Steve's creation!
SubGenius said 2:10PM on 7-28-2009
The real culprit here is SMS, this is the goose that lays the golden eggs for AT&T. Many of us are paying $20 a month for something that costs AT&T maybe 20 cents to provide. That is a 99% profit margin. Instant Messaging has been allowed because it is not convenient and ubiquitous enough to eat into their profits.
Once you get Google Voice you can drop your text plan entirely. You don't need it. If 5 million AT&T customers drop their SMS plan at an average of $10 a month...thats 600 million in lost income, 540 million in lost profit per year.
SubGenius said 2:20PM on 7-28-2009
Just to clarify...Apple pulled the switch on GoogleVoice to protect it's profit margins. Carriers typically pay a $400 subsidy on every iPhone. If the carrier can't recoup that by overcharging for SMS...bye bye carrier subsidies.
I still can't believe Apple is able to charge $229 for an iPod Touch and !$600! for an iPhone(more than 2.5X as much). There is a lot of profit margin on every iPhone.
Jash said 10:36PM on 7-28-2009
it can't be AT&T because its not available outside of America in the app store right?
jb510 said 1:52AM on 7-29-2009
I don't care if it's Apple or AT&T or both... it's BS... and pisses me off to no end with both of them.
I just finished testing out GV for the last couple weeks and was just about to buy a 3GS to replace my 2G iPhone.... mostly because GV would enable me to have a iPhone and somewhat get around the hell that is having AT&T... but not without GV.
Urbz said 12:58AM on 7-28-2009
Hmm... I personally don't think that AT&T has much to do with this. I think it's all Apple. For AT&T, this is just another phone... that makes them a crapload of money. I think they just consider themselves lucky that they still have an exclusive contract.
If we think about Europe, where Skype and related apps are used more often on other phones (such as Nokias), we should probably believe that there should be a 3G-enabled Skype on the EU app stores, but there isn't.
Apple is throwing the carriers a bone, a thank-you card to earn some goodwill. This shows them that Apple doesn't ONLY care about itself, but that the carriers are important to them.
And, for the record, I doubt that the carriers would be too vocal about Skype working over 3G (or GV, etc) simply because they make more money off customers with iPhones due to the higher-priced plans.
Still, Apple being nice acts as a bargaining chip, and such chips go a long way in the corporate world.
Reply
AG13 said 1:54AM on 7-28-2009
The iPhone isn't actually a huge money maker for AT&T. AT&T's profits are down because of the huge ($400?) subsidies on the iPhone—they haven't made their money back yet. AT&T itself has said it hopes to make back that money through service fees, etc, meaning they will do anything they can to make it easier for people to go over their AT&T minutes, texts, etc.
Hey said 2:38AM on 7-28-2009
what company ,sad to say, goes "we should be lucky we even have that,instead of trying to make excess money that we dont need!"?
jtsnyc47 said 10:00AM on 7-28-2009
The iPhone isn't a huge moneymaker for AT&T?! Wut? You did see the reported earnings‚ yes?
Izzy said 9:50AM on 7-28-2009
I think it's AT&T myself. Apple has no motive in blocking any VOIP, chat or IM apps. Unless they own stock in AT&T, but there would have been an SEC filing if that were the case.
THJ said 12:40PM on 7-28-2009
If people stop dropping the 20$/mo unlimited texts in favor of GV, AT&T will poop a canary. That's what it's been removed, IMO.
Janne said 4:09PM on 7-28-2009
No, iPhone is not "just another phone" to AT&T or to anyone else. AT&T knows that iPhone-users actually USE their phones. Take a look at web-browsing: Even though iPhone had a small share of the market, it quickly became by far the #1 device for web-browsing. Same thing happened with photography. People actually USE the features that are in their iPhone. I bet that pretty soon iPhone will be the #1 phone for shooting youtube-videos.
This is the reason why AT&T is unwilling to support the features that other phones support. They know that if iPhone get a full-featured slingplayer-support, iPhone-users would very soon dominate other phones when it comes to using slingplayer on mobile devices, and that would cripple AT&T's network. Same thing with tethering and MMS. And I bet that's what happened here as well.
AT&T knows that iPhone is not a "just another phone", It's a phone that has features that people actually use. AT&T has no problems supporting those features (slingplayer, MMS etc.) on some other phones, since they know that only a handful of people will actually use those features. But if those features are supported on the iPhone, they know that iPhone-users would actually use that feature, and they would use it heavily.
portorikan said 1:01AM on 7-28-2009
Apple, it's time to look for more partners stateside other than ATT. I think the Now Network would be a great place to start so develop that CDMA phone and that 4G iphone to run on their network.
Sprint is pretty flex and open when it comes to these things. Your phone has been enslaved long enought.
Reply
Hey said 2:39AM on 7-28-2009
NOO!!! Verizon first!!!
Verizon has SHIT for phones,you have the Pre =)
Or at least make one for Verizon AND Sprint.
Ryan Trevisol said 7:32AM on 7-28-2009
While I am totally with you portorikan, I would love to see Sprint get the iPhone. This would accomplish two things for me. It would squash pompous, wierd-for-the-sake-of-wierd the reincarnation Pre advertisements once and for all, and it would give people the opportunity to use the iPhone on a network that doesn't rape it's customers over things like SMS. And whose plans are actually affordable.
But the problem with Sprint is, they're clinging to CDMA, which is a dying protocol. Sorry, but the world is heading toward GSM. Sure Sprint's trying it's hardest to push Wimax out there, but despite having a head start, they're going to fall far behind Verizon and may eventually be edged out because of not being able to play nice with Verizon and AT&T.
By waiting for LTE, Apple's poised themselves to 1) Not have to develop a CDMA and GSM version, and 2) Automatically grow another distribution partner in the US: Verizon. In fact, Verizon's going to have LTE long before the Death Star . . . and we already know the LTE iPhone exists and is worth killing over.
justelise said 7:34AM on 7-28-2009
Since this issue has nothing to do with AT&T, you'd get the same treatment through the App Store on ANY carrier.
fd said 12:39PM on 7-28-2009
@Ryan
I don't know that CDMA is dying.
Living in metropolitan areas it is very easy to overlook that ATT / GSM coverage is too limited in many more rural states for people to buy an Iphone. Lots of areas have CDMA only and people can't expect the GSM network to grow, because it would never be cost-effective. Certainly not in the short term. We've nary seen a network change anywhere.
One of our friends just got an iPhone and switched to ATT from Verizon, not realizing she just basically cut her coverage area in half, if not worse. She was shocked that at her place of employment for instance: no signal. Oh yeah ... more bars in more places.
We get verizon cellphone service and broadband access where an iPhone is already out of range for an hour.
And note that I'm not a verizon drone or apologist. There's plenty of dislike from us to go around about some of Verizon's practices, rates and fees. I'd be a lot happier with less expensive service options. But it is what it is, and at least we are satisfied with their coverage area.
Unless we could put an iPhone on Verizon, I seriously doubt we'd get one.
jb510 said 1:46AM on 7-29-2009
Wouldn't be easy enough to add support for T-Mo's 3G frequency? I'd start there....
patterya said 1:08AM on 7-28-2009
Guess that cinched it. Palm Pre here I come. Someday the idiot squad (be it Apple or AT&T) will figure out that by continuing to cripple the functionality that people want will drive them to another, less crippled device. Reading this brings back the memories of Verizon killing off the GPS in my Curve because of vzw navihater only to eventually make it work in BBmaps but not Google maps. Maybe it's a feature that means my phone is broken but I'm still gonna blame vzw.
Reply