Filed under: Apple Corporate, App Store
FCC Responses: Apple's take on the GV apps mess
Well, that's all well and good, but cold comfort to the other GV apps pulled from the store unceremoniously.Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it.
Since we haven't seen the official Google Voice app, there's no way to independently support Apple's claims regarding its potentially disruptive functionality. On one point in this section, however, I can call a yellow card.The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and 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. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub-replacing the iPhone's text messaging feature. In addition, the iPhone user's entire Contacts database is transferred to Google's servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.
Apple goes on to agree with AT&T that the carrier did not engage on any level regarding the GV apps.
As we noted in some of our original coverage of the GV controversy, Google Voice is not a VoIP service in the same way that Skype or Gizmo are, since it continues to use the cell network for voice connectivity to the device. Apple's response to the FCC inquiry shows that they are on the same page.Question 4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone. Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T's 3G network?
Apple 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. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&T's 3G network.
If nothing else, this is a bit more transparency into the approval process than what we've seen before.Apple developed a comprehensive review process that looks at every iPhone application that is submitted to Apple. Applications and marketing text are submitted through a web interface. Submitted applications undergo a rigorous review process that tests for vulnerabilities such as software bugs, instability on the iPhone platform, and the use of unauthorized protocols. Applications are also reviewed to try to prevent privacy issues, safeguard children from exposure to inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly. Apple also established an App Store executive review board that determines procedures and sets policy for the review process, as well as reviews applications that are escalated to the board because they raise new or complex issues. The review board meets weekly and is comprised of senior management with responsibilities for the App Store. 95% of applications are approved within 14 days of being submitted.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Richard N. said 6:08PM on 8-21-2009
As far as the App Store goes, the the more transparency the better.
http://twitter.com/richanomix
Reply
Duncan said 6:40PM on 8-21-2009
no one cares about your twitter
Richard N. said 6:47PM on 8-21-2009
duncan don't be a douche
F00n Marani said 7:58PM on 8-21-2009
"duncan don't be a douche"
Says the douche with a twitter link at the end of his non-contributing comment.
Hector Ramos said 6:09PM on 8-21-2009
They make it seem like the Google Voice app from Google used a heavily branded interface that on the whole caused much concern at Apple. You are right, independent features have already been implemented in other apps, but it looks like the whole GV package hits too close to home -- replacing all of the functionality of the iPhone that is not generally covered by a single app. On top of that, it caries the Google brand. Note that they make clear that users are welcome to use Google Voice on their own Google branded phone, as if saying "this is the Apple iPhone, not the Google Phone."
As for me, I still think Apple should let me choose to use GV if I so desire, but I do see their side of the argument. Next week is going to be interesting!
Reply
soxneon said 6:09PM on 8-21-2009
Beaurocracy, night and day you torture meeee...
Reply
Paul said 6:13PM on 8-21-2009
Time for us users to do something.
http://www.bantheappstore.com
Reply
doblezeta said 6:38PM on 8-21-2009
Based on Apple's answers, they have 40 "full-time trained reviewers". Each application gets reviewed by at least 2 reviewers. They review 8,500 apps a week.
Doing the math, thats: 425 apps reviewed by each reviewer every week. 85 apps reviewed by 1 person every day (assuming 5 day work week). 10 apps an hour (assuming 8 hour work day). 6 minutes to review per app.
Wow. That's alot of apps to review for one week. No wonder the review process is slow. Can you imaging being in the shoes of these 40 reviewers?
Solution: hire more reviewers Apple. C'mon, you have ALOT of spare cash lying around.
Reply
Shunnabunich said 10:34PM on 8-21-2009
I was flabbergasted when they said "more than 40 reviewers" like it was something to be proud of. They're trying to cram tens of thousands of applications, each of which needs to be individually assessed, through forty people, and they expect this system to hold up? Now I KNOW there's something wrong at Apple.
Kyle said 6:37PM on 8-21-2009
Maybe this is silly, but why should it matter if an app replaces the iPhone functionality? As long as the program isn't harmful to the hardware or network, what non-marketing reason is there to prevent me from replacing the functionality should a suitable application be introduced? I'm still using the phone, stil paying for the plan.
Reply
Duncan said 6:40PM on 8-21-2009
Im still wondering that, I guess because AT&T and through them apple, loose money if you have a cheaper SMS option?
Cycomachead said 7:07PM on 8-21-2009
Because apple believes that it will lower the customer experience will a not as well designed interface. Believe it or not, it's true to an extent. None of us here are apple's target audience, keep that in mind.
I think Apple is telling half the truth here. I think the reasons they list are valid-or are valid in their mind. However, I think there's greater reasons that aren't listed. I don't see such things really posing a threat to apple. Google Voice clearly has some business disadvantages to any cell carrier. Could it be someone other than AT&T, or is GV US only?
Of course, if my suspicions were true, that would be HUGE legal trouble for Apple.
Honestly though, apple fails at QA for the App Store. My app which I released just a week ago has a nasty display bug where the font gets written over. Apple didn't say anything and I only found out when I downloaded my own app from the Apple Store. Apparently I was using an older file that wasn't fixed. Ver 1.1 is in review with Apple right now (5 days only so far...). Apple seriously needs to consider better enforcement of it's Human interface Guidelines. Personally, they should list fixes and not necessarily outright rejections for some apps.
mentalsticks said 4:08AM on 8-22-2009
Somebody should tell Steve that Bloomberg 2.0... shhh... shows the same stock quotes as the iPhone's stocks app..
Justin said 7:13PM on 8-21-2009
Sparknotes summary please.
Reply
SIP said 7:47PM on 8-21-2009
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
Shouldn't companies be allowed to "sell" whatever goods or services they want without all this nannying from the State? There should be very few exceptions, such as obscene material, fake/counterfeit stuff...
Some of these anti-competitive laws don't make sense -- if Google wants to offer a telephony service to allow calls/SMS, it should either set up its own network or buy in bulk from an existing network and sell-on to end users. Also, since when are two competitors supposed to open up their product for each other without some sort of formal arrangements?
Apple should be able to run its AppStore as it wants.
Perhaps Apple should have just rejected Google's application to register as a developer, and then there wouldn't be all this fuss.
Reply
Michael Rose said 8:32PM on 8-21-2009
Leaving aside the rest of your comment, there's one point that seems to cry out for response:
"Perhaps Apple should have just rejected Google's application to register as a developer, and then there wouldn't be all this fuss."
You may not realize that Google was an SDK development partner before there was an SDK -- but it was. Google worked with Apple to develop the Maps app that shipped with iPhone OS 1.0. There is no conceivable way, in the pre-Android world, that Google could have been rejected as an iPhone developer; it was among the first.
SIP said 8:09AM on 8-22-2009
I was already aware of the co-operation/collaboration between Apple & Google for the Maps app.
The issue here is about the ability of any business to sell its legitimate wares & services in a free-market environment, without having to give a helping-hand to its competitors.
At the end of the day, that is what it boils down to as the Android OS is a direct competitor to iPhone OS. Otherwise, why did Eric Schmidt have to leave Apple's board? Add the network in the mix and Google benefits twice over from being able to sell/give away GV for iPhone.
As I said earlier, if Google wants to offer a telephony service to allow calls/SMS, it should either set up its own network or buy in bulk from an existing network and sell-on to end users.
atuck said 8:44PM on 8-21-2009
Are you kidding me? These two companies don't have closed phone calls? Give me a break. This may be their official stance, but I think the reality is quite clearly different.
Reply
HTK said 9:49PM on 8-21-2009
FCC could also ask why Apple forces applications such as Skype and Fring to be 3G-crippled.
Reply
Aslam N said 10:45PM on 8-21-2009
What about iPhone users outside of the US?
In Apple's response to the FCC they mentioned that the developers of certain applications (such as SlingPlayer and Skype) were asked to re-work their applications so that they would adhere to conditions in the AT&T Terms of Service (i.e. no television content or VOIP being passed through the 3G network).
I am an iPhone user in Canada and as far as I can see by my TOS with Rogers (link below) I have no such limitations.
Therefore why am I and the millions of other iPhone users outside the US having our potential functionality limited by AT&T's TOS which we are not subject to?
I feel that Apple needs to pay more attention to the fact that the iPhone is an international product and the Apps on the App Store are available to more than just AT&T customers.
Rogers Consumer TOS: http://www.rogers.com/cms/pdf/en/TOS_Eng.pdf
Reply