It doesn't happen so much anymore, but not too long ago you'd hear about a new offering arriving in the App Store that would stir up a little controversy (the NetShare tethering app springs to mind). They'd enjoy some fanfare and a ton of purchases for a few days before being summarily removed, never to return and often without a thorough explanation from Apple. A relatively small number of users would retain possession of the app and would take a bit of pride in knowing that they were in the right place at just the right time to snag a copy of the app before it was yanked.

When I got the email from our very own Mike Rose regarding the release of GV Mobile, I was pretty excited. I'd been wanting to more fully adopt the Google Voice service, but had wanted a more iPhone-ish experience in doing so and GV Mobile seemed to have just what I was jonesing for. I paid the three bucks right then and, like The Giving Tree, was happy.

My adoption plan for Google Voice didn't pan out quite like I'd hoped for a while after that. I'd use it occasionally, but I had trouble moving it from the number I gave to sales people to the number I gave to my mother-in-law. But, despite the absence of the app in the App Store, I still had a perfectly working copy of it on my iPhone, ready when I was - or so I thought.

A couple of weeks ago, I had decided that it was time to make Google Voice a more central part of my communication workflow. Having not launched GV Mobile in a while, I fired it up to reacquaint myself with the interface, capabilities, etc. Trouble is, I couldn't authenticate with Google. I triple-checked my credentials but the app would just throw an error on launch and that was that. A couple of people on Twitter had mentioned having the same issue and a quick Google search informed me that, sure enough, the app no longer worked. Apparently, Google had modified the Voice API such that authentication now worked differently than it did when GV Mobile was written. Because the app no longer had Apple's seal of approval, I had little recourse because there obviously weren't going to be any updates to the app anytime soon.

Which raised the broader question - how heavily should we rely on "orphaned" apps? If they're self-contained (which is to say, they don't rely on any web sites or services to function properly), it probably isn't a big deal, but if you're a heavy Google Voice user and GV Mobile is how you got your work done, is it really a good idea to hang your hopes on an app that will likely never see any type of upgrade or bugfix release?

I can confidently say that this little hiccup has seriously cramped my plans for more completely adopting Google Voice. Is the same true for you? Have you experienced this type of dilemma with any other now-missing App Store purchases? Tell us about it in the comments!

If you've been following coverage of Apple's rejection of Google Voice for iPhone, you saw TUAW blogger Chris Rawson considering whether pressure from AT&T might have been behind the Google Voice rejection -- an assumption first floated by TechCrunch and later substantiated by Daring Fireball. The absurd nature of the app removals is highlighted in the blog post from Riverturn, developers of VoiceCentral, which reports the conversation with an Apple representative.

Google Voice offers free call forwarding to your home, office, and cell, free Internet-accessible voice mail (with text transcription!), free SMS, and a single phone number for life. These free features compete against AT&T's revenue streams.

When it comes to "duplicate functionality", Apple doesn't seem to have any problem allowing applications like AT&T co-branded Virtual Recptionist (iTunes link) in App Store. Virtual Receptionist provides custom call forwarding to three phone numbers, in a similar manner to Google Voice.

In the wake of the rejection, sites like Wired, which should get credit for predicting this issue, have considered whether Apple's move might invite regulation due to the company's control over the App Store and possible anti-competitive concerns. A legislative response isn't out of the question should enough unhappy customers start petitioning their congressmen, especially in a political climate that encourages government intervention in private business. Granted, the iPhone isn't a monopoly among smartphones, but Apple does hold all the cards when it comes to app approval on the platform.

ChannelWeb's Rick Whiting (via the Wall Street Journal) points out that the US Department of Justice has "begun investigating whether large U.S. telecommunications companies such as AT&T and Verizon Communications were engaging in anti-competitive behavior, including locking up the most popular handsets. The exclusive deal between AT&T-Apple is said to be drawing the most scrutiny." Whiting believes that AT&T and Apple may be drawing attention from a DOJ intent on cracking down on exactly this kind of excess. AT&T's tight relationship with Apple might be affecting how Apple runs App Store, as might be the case with the Google Voice rejection.

Update: The official Google app is apparently not going to be released either.

Earlier today, iPhone developer Sean Kovacs posted on his blog that his Google Voice client, GV Mobile, is getting pulled from the App Store due to "duplicating features that the iPhone comes with (Dialer, SMS, etc)." Kovacs says he received a call from an Apple staffer, who "wouldn't send a confirmation email either - too scared I would post it."

The app still appears in the App Store, but when you attempt to purchase it you will be told "The item you tried to buy is no longer available." We've also heard that Voice Central (another Google Voice application) is similarly no longer available for purchase.

There has been speculation that Google is preparing its own iPhone app for Google Voice, however, in light of the news that Apple 'requested' that Google make Latitude a web app instead of a native app "in order to avoid confusion with Maps on the iPhone," I wonder if we are unlikely to see such an application from Google.

MailWrangler, a native Gmail client for the iPhone was also rejected from the App Store because the "application duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application Mail without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality, which will lead to user confusion."

As a heavy duty user of Gmail, I've wished for MailWrangler from the beginning. Sure you can use Gmail through Mobile Safari -- as you can use Google Voice -- but as Apple soon learned after trying to convince users and developers that web apps were all we needed, there are certain things which a native application makes much easier.

GV Mobile is a very popular application for using Google Voice on the iPhone. Apple's own phone application is great, but for Google Voice users, a native application was a nice thing to have.

I'm not sure why Apple keeps insisting that users would be confused by apps which do similar things (How many different applications are there which duplicate "Notes" functionality?), but a greater concern is the idea that a developer can work on an application, have it released to huge success, and then have Apple turn around and yank it from the App Store.

This in loco parentis attitude from Apple hurts iPhone users and developers alike. Developers like Fraser Speirs have stopped developing new applications for the iPhone and he's not the only one. (Fraser's post on Twitter was how I heard how I heard about GV Mobile being pulled from the App Store.)

I hope these are growing pains that Apple and the App Store will leave behind. Users who seek out, find, download, and install 3rd party applications are unlikely to be "confused" by the "duplication" of functionality. The fact that they sought them out is evidence that they found something lacking from the applications that Apple offers.

The App Store is wonderful, except for the parts of it which are terrible; namely, the review process (which takes too long and rejects too many apps) and the removal of applications which do no harm and which have been released for some time to great success.

UPDATE: The developers of Voice Central had an interesting conversation with Apple. Mostly involving the word "can't."