FCC Responses: Apple's take on the GV apps mess

What business is this of the FCC? Did Google go tell on Apple? Give me a break! There's no law forcing you to use an iPhone. They built it, they should be able to decide what they will, or won't allow on it. The government needs to stop wasting our tax money on this stupidity.

This argument is a bit ridiculous, people are angry that Apple wants to reject an app that duplicates services that are a part of their OS and marketing pitch, and is branded to a direct competitor? That's insane. Why can't I get Blackberry service on my Palm Treo or Pepsi products at Coke sponsored venues. Apple is a business that needs to make money, and while I would love to have the GV app on my iphone, I completely understand why Apple wouldn't want me to.

Apple is wanting to make sure that this app doesn't allow people to downgrade their plans with AT&T, and future carriers (I'm looking at you, Verizon... tablet this year... I'm calling it from the inside) and other carriers worldwide, by utilizing the GV app. If half of US iPhone users (legitimate) used GV for SMS, that's anywhere from $32,000,000 to $128,000,000 that AT&T could lose in revenue (according to Nielson - 6.4 million * $5, $15, or $20).

I can understand Apple denying apps' entrance into the AppStore when they violate Privacy Policy, violate Terms of Service and/or cause instability in the OS. What I don't understand is Apple's statement about how GV "degrades the core experience". I've also seen AppStore rejection letters that cite "user confusion" as a reason for denial.
Aren't these statements a little subjective? For a GV user, duplicating iPhone functionality that interacts with the GV service seems like it would enhance their experience. And what Apple deems confusing and what I find confusing could be completely different.
If a user doesn't like the experience that the App offers, or if they find the App too confusing, shouldn't they just uninstall it?

I call BS on almost all of that. The contact list to server thing is a key point which if true, Google needs to provide Apple with assurances of their privacy policy.

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.

Google *must* route Voicecalls through its servers, so that it can change the caller ID, which is key to the way Google voice works. That way if they call you back, it rings all your phones.

It cannot also appear in Visual Voicemail, because it's a separate box and/or because Apple has not released an API for them to do so.

The Google voice number can also receive texts. Again, for the same reason above, it's a separate *number* with SMS capability which cannot integrate into the iphone SMS app -- this is because of the iphone cannot have two numbers assigned to it, only one, and for a host of other reasons, since Google voice is not a real SIM card, it's a "virtual" phone number that can ring any phone -- it's a forwarding service.

It's not "transparency" if it's an answer provided in a letter to the FCC under legal compulsion. "Transparency" would be having a public policy, spelled out in great detail, on a website, with a well-understood and predictable rejection system that explained to developers exactly which rule pertained to each rejection. Nor is having Phil Schiller randomly emailing people "transparency," for that matter.

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

FCC could also ask why Apple forces applications such as Skype and Fring to be 3G-crippled.

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.

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.