Filed under: Apple Corporate, iPhone, App Store
Google contradicts Apple, states Apple rejected Google Voice
The Google Voice story grows even murkier today as new details arise about its App Store rejection. When the FCC launched an inquiry into the presence of the Google Voice app on the App Store, Apple, AT&T and Google all provided formal response letters. Portions of Google's letter were kept confidential from the public. Today, after several requests, Google finally released their entire FCC letter to the public.
In it, Google states that Apple did in fact reject the Google Voice app for the iPhone, and that Phil Shiller met and talked to Alan Eustace at Google about the rejection. Google's letter contradicts what Apple has stated, that they never actually rejected the Google Voice app.
Today's news adds another element to the disappointment and confusion over the presence of Google Voice on the iPhone. Apple stated to Engadget that they did not reject Google Voice and that they continue to look into bringing it to the App Store. TUAW has contacted Apple for a further statement about the rejection details. We have not heard anything back yet.
[via Engadget]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
blachole said 2:11PM on 9-18-2009
ok now its time for Apple to just approve the app without causing itself more trouble and negative publicity then it needs..
Reply
ack154 said 2:14PM on 9-18-2009
Oh no they didn't! It's on now!
Reply
THJ said 2:23PM on 9-18-2009
The missing link in this story is what AT&T said to Apple. I know that if I were an AT&T exec, and I was threatened with customers nixing their unlimited 20$ SMS packages (aka sending my ARPU through the floor), I would do everything I could get away with to prevent it from happening. Not to mention free call forwarding.
Sure, there are other 'free text' apps out there, but none with the branding and muscle behind it like Google has.
Reply
SR said 2:34PM on 9-18-2009
I think Google chose to say that it rejected, however the reasons for rejection are communicated over phone.
I would like to see the screenshot of Google's iTunes Connect where the status shows that App was rejected. (or the email that would be sent to the account saying the same).
Apple probably called Google saying that they will not be approving the app for these reasons, but I guess they did not push the reject button formally. Google chooses to verbalize that as rejected.
Reply
letstakeawalk said 2:58PM on 9-18-2009
So, based on your logic, if your girlfriend told you over the phone see didn't think she should see you, and that she wouldn't acknowledge you in public, but that because she didn't actually say she was breaking up with you, she's still your girlfriend?
Rejection is rejection. A phone call between high-ups in two major companies should be able to agree on what was said. I tend to believe Google - because they were in fact rejected. If Apple didn't reject them, then who did?
VanillaSpice said 12:16AM on 9-22-2009
@letstakeawalk -
"Rejection is rejection." - No, "rejection (official)" is what you get when Apple formally rejects your application. "Rejection (whatever I want to hear and take as rejection" is just what you think, it has no connection to Apple, and is neither formal nor official.
"A phone call between high-ups in two major companies should be able to agree on what was said." - It is quite possible (I believe it is likely) that neither party disagrees about what was said, only what it meant.
I can easily think of dozens of phrases that would reasonably imply "not yet approved" to one party and reasonably imply "rejected" to another ... why does everyone have to believe in evil companies and conspiracy theories? Why not take the obvious position (simple misunderstanding) instead?
"I tend to believe Google - because they were in fact rejected." - Uh, no, you are making the mistake of thinking that "not in the store" is equal to "rejected". But they are not the same thing. Un-submitted apps, not-yet-approved apps, and rejected apps, all do not appear in the store. So the fact that something is not in the store is not proof that it has been rejected.
Alex said 2:46PM on 9-18-2009
I hope this is the beginning of the end of the bullshit way Apple and AT&T have been dealing with apps.
Reply
Bingo said 6:47PM on 9-18-2009
Well, if you bought an iPhone at FULL PRICE, meaning not the subsidized price AT&T has been selling at, then yeah, I'll listen to you bitch. But people need to be adults and see the truth. If AT&T is subsidizing the cost of your phone, then contractually it should be stipulated that Apple does not allow apps that circumvent calling on its cellular networks. Apps that don't use voice minutes to make calls over the 3G data networks would be against everything AT&T does as a business.
So people, stop your whining.
Mobile Phone Diva said 7:59PM on 9-18-2009
I thought Google Voice DID use minutes, it's not a VOIP, just a virtual number.
Jerome36 said 9:06PM on 9-18-2009
Bingo, it doesn't matter if AT&T is subsidizing the phone. You're still paying for it with high priced cellular fees. AT&T gets their money back, there's no doubt. You say that people need to "see the truth?" Lets look at that "unlimited data plan" they offer their customers…
Josh said 1:23AM on 9-19-2009
Bingo...
Educate yourself, then speak... please.
GV uses your voice minutes. Not 3G. You basically call a local number and it routes you around... etc...
You're wrong.
Mike said 5:10AM on 9-19-2009
Bingo,
Subsidizing doesn't give AT&T some right to limit applications on the device. What if AT&T told you "here is your new 3G netbook, but you can only use the IE web browser"...
Alex said 3:09PM on 9-19-2009
@Bingo: I pay for my iPhone with a two year contract of overpriced internet and overpriced minutes. Either way I have to pay the monthly fee, so what does it matter how I use my phone? Get off the AT&T jock.
Michael M. said 2:54PM on 9-18-2009
SR: If you've been told you rejected, I would say that is pretty certain, even without a tiny little web button being pushed, especially if it is a very high ranking exec that tells you.
Apple's "Never accepted, never rejected" description always sounded like desperate back-peddling to me, trying to reduce the target area for the FCC.
Very shady health insurance companies do exactly the same thing, leaving claims "pending" indefinitely, so that they can say they never rejected the claim in court. It also keeps the patient from appealing a rejection, since they were never rejected. The insurance company never has to pay the bills.
I would frankly have been happier with Apple if they had been honest enough to admit rejection to the FCC, but they were probably afraid the FCC would step in and force them to clarify the app acceptance/rejection rules.
Reply
kfresh said 2:56PM on 9-18-2009
Look no further than the GV Mobile App being approved and then later rejected. That completely substantiates Googles claim. It was pulled around the same time as Googles app was rejected. Obviously GV Mobile isn't sitting in the same fake App. Store limbo.
Reply
Jorge said 3:13PM on 9-18-2009
I love the way everyone assumes that Google is telling the truth when, for all we know, they could easily be lying just as they are saying Apple did...
Reply
pListOFF said 3:18PM on 9-18-2009
Thanks, Jorge - for saying what I was thinking. This is he-said, she-said. There's no proof that Google's description is any more truthful than Apple's (except to people who want to use Google Voice - which I am not one).
Drifter71 said 3:21PM on 9-18-2009
I would like to see some emails or written correspondence that backs both sides' claims.
Martin said 4:17PM on 9-18-2009
Until there is a GV Mobile app in the store, I'll believe Google. It's been a long time ... why hasn't it been approved yet if it's a non-issue?
Jorge said 5:00PM on 9-18-2009
Martin:
perhaps apple made recommendations on areas of the GV app that needed to be changed and Google has yet to do so... That seems like a reasonable reason why it is yet to be approved. My point is that Google is a competitor of apple and there are reasons why google would want apple to get in trouble. Because of that, unless one of the companes can provide proof of their side of the story this is all just a bunch of BS (in my opinion). not only that, people forget that AT&T would also be directly impacted by an app that would eliminate the need for their services, like a monthly plan. Despite it being said that AT&T didn't have anything to do with this "rejection" the truth is you have to be retarded to think they would be fine with an app that could cause people to get the cheapest plans available and just use the free phone/text/vm through GV. So the reality is everyone probably has had some sort of fault in this...