Distinctions without differences: Apple's inconsistent app store rejection policies

I admit, I was one of those to pile on ol' Ma Bell as the culprit for keeping the Google Voice app (don't I wish that was a real iTunes link) off the App Store. Restrictions on Skype and the SlingPlayer app on the iPhone had conditioned me to believe that the "game changing" iPhone had, well, a completely different set of rules applied to it by AT&T. While many in the tech community continued to jump atop the dog pile, in which AT&T was at the very bottom, Apple ran the ball back the other way without anybody noticing.

Apple's response to the FCC's questions covers several areas -- including the fact that it acted alone without AT&T's consultation -- in rejecting not yet allowing the Google Voice app. Almost as striking as Apple's admitted culpability, however, is its rationale for it, which smacks of odd logic and damages the spirit of the App Store.

In short, Apple states that it rejected "continues to study" Google Voice because, in its current form, the app "replaces the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface for telephone calls, text messages and voicemail."

While the iPhone is more than the sum of its parts, the phone portion of it is arguably the least compelling when compared to other features. Out of the box, the iPhone comes with several apps pre-installed. And, based on their placement at the foot of the home screen (as well as Steve Jobs' Macworld proclamation), Apple views the iPhone as "an iPod, a phone, and an Internet communicator (Safari and Mail)." But the advent of the App Store and the third party apps that arrived with it further reinvented a device that had already reinvented the entire tech market. If the iPhone wasn't already viewed as a computer-first, phone-a-distant-second device, it certainly took this form after the App Store.

Taken at face value, Apple's rationale for rejecting Google Voice also means that YouMail [iTunes link], TextFree [iTunes link], and Skype [iTunes link] should be rejected as well. As Mike noted yesterday, YouMail could serve as a replacement for Visual Voicemail, TextFree could supplant the iPhone's SMS client, and Skype could do both, albeit in a different and slightly limited capacity.

And, while we're at it, other apps should be rejected as well, as they too could "replace" the functionality of the iPhone's other core features. Let's kick out mBox Mail [iTunes link], for despite its Hotmail and Windows Live Mail-only limited audience, it could potentially replace the iPhone's built-in Mail app. Simplify Media's Simplify Music 2 [iTunes link] should also be outlawed. Because of its ability to stream your entire iTunes library on demand, it could potentially serve as a replacement for the built-in iPod app.

The list is endless, as are Apple's application approval and rejection inconsistencies.

To a degree, Apple's rationale for rejecting the Google Voice app assumes that a) there already exists, or there's a strong potential for, a large Google Voice user base and that b) this base will overwhelmingly choose Google Voice over the native phone app on the iPhone. But neither of these are matters of fact, and we won't know if those outcomes are likely while the native app remains in limbo. At least Apple, AT&T and Google agree on the fact that most of the Google Voice functionality is available via the web browser on the iPhone -- just not all of it.

The wording of Apple's argument for rejecting continuing to study Google Voice, an issue that it is still "pondering," certainly leaves the company some wiggle room to approve the app pending changes. Or, Apple could take other routes. Like the podcast downloading feature that was later added in an OS update, one potential avenue for Apple to take is to integrate Google Voice functionality in the iPhone's native phone app. Obviously, some changes may need to be made to comply with AT&T's restrictions, and every feature may not make it in.

Whether, and at what speed, anything occurs will likely depend on public pressure, which we in the collective tech community can serve to channel and focus. We'll proceed with caution, and not take our eyes off the ball.

View Tags

Source: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/

Categories

Analysis / Opinion App Store

I admit, I was one of those to pile on ol' Ma Bell as the culprit for keeping the Google Voice app (don't I wish that was a real iTunes...

Add a Comment

Sign in »

28 Comments

Filter by:

VanillaSpice

"damages the spirit of the App Store."

Say what?? The spirit of the App Store is, "if Apple says yes, it gets in".

Only in the minds of some people (with fanciful imaginations), was the App Store some open, uncontrolled free-for-all. But Apple never said it would be. Apple was 100% clear from the start that they would maintain control over what applications were accepted. They never, EVER pretended otherwise. Not once!

So this most certainly does not break the "spirit" of the App Store, it just breaks what you mistakenly thought was the spirit of the App Store. A very different thing.

August 24 2009 at 12:00 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Brad

Oops. Thanks 1Password.

August 23 2009 at 12:21 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Brad

Is it too much of a stretch to expect these features on the next iPhone in June?

- HSUPA - faster uplink speeds for the video share that AT&T has. I don't expect a front-facing camera.

- A better camera experience. At least 4 MP and a new side button so I can hold the phone in landscape to take photos and videos.

- OLED display. Samsung is coming out with a OLED camera soon with a 3" screen. Why not on the iPhone?

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-tl320-12mp-digital-camera-with-oled-display-leaks-1935067/

August 23 2009 at 12:20 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

lrd

Google's attempt to "high jack" the iPhone and all the data on it would be unacceptable to Apple, RIM and any other phone maker. That would make it all too convenient for anyone at the end of their contract to jump to an Android phone. And I am sure Google would capitalize on this.

August 22 2009 at 11:37 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

DonB

Sorry, I don't understand what it is that GV can do that I can't do whenever I wan't. I can forward my calls from home or office whenever I want. I can tell important contacts where to call. More importantly I can dial any local or long distance number (except international) as part of my AT&T contract as often as I like. So why would I use GV?
I can't place a call from GV, it has to ring my phone. So what, I have to call my phone to make a call from my phone? I'm lost!
When I can call from my browser (any browser) using my GV number and not be charged for a call, then GV will be useful.

August 22 2009 at 4:14 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Bernard Ramsey

I enjoyed your op/analysis and also agree with you about the Google voice fiasco. That app should never have been banned - welcome to the end of the cellular generation, Apple. AT&T has been very aware of trends and shift from home to cell to digital cell and net calls.

Although Apple publicly took the heat for this, to say that AT&T had no input in the decision is just plain blind. Scenario: Stage 1: Google Voice + AT&T's unlimited voice plan. Stage 2: Google's Voice Plan. Gotta love competition.

I also disagree with this kind of post (in a way). While Mac news sites like TUAW love to cover stories about app rejections/bad experiences, look at how many successful apps & stories don't get covered. Tons of apps, tons of independent developers. People are making money with the iPhone, and the apps are drawing people beyond the simplistic beauty of the device. The iPhone is a success and so is the app store.

August 22 2009 at 3:54 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

1 reply to Bernard Ramsey's comment

Dick Applebaum

Ahh... but, according to 21st century journalism,=:

news = bad news

August 23 2009 at 6:42 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Pete

I don't care. If you are all that upset over this then please go buy a Google (Android) phone. You can then run all the Google apps you want.

August 22 2009 at 2:25 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Rego

Assuming that some of the points above are valid, (and that I understand them) can you imagine how members of the general public, iphone users, would react to learn after downloading google voice that their whole address book has been downloaded into GV (forever) and they may now have 2 places to look for visual voice mail. I think many folks would be upset. Yes I know you could delete the GV app, but the irritation may continue and some would inevitably be directed at Apple.

I would love to see Apple develop it's own voip and GV type app. If Google can do it; Apple could do it better.

August 22 2009 at 2:02 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Ian Richardson

Yeah Hawks!

August 22 2009 at 1:26 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

1 reply to Ian Richardson's comment

KTaylor

Thank you for beating me to the go hawk comment...oh I'm ready for hawkeye football this year.

August 23 2009 at 12:06 AM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Carroll Wills

Yes, it seems that some in the developer community (at least as represented by this blog) are awfully quick to give Google a pass and jump on Apple. Of the two companies, Apple is the one that actually publicized its rationale. Google had the FCC redact its response to the question of why the app was rejected.

What, I wonder, is Google protecting? They have no particular incentive to cover Apple's behind.

August 22 2009 at 12:41 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply