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!

Business Insider is reporting that AT&T has given Apple the go-ahead to enable Voice over IP (VoIP) apps such as Skype on its 3G network. In the past, VoIP apps required a Wi-Fi connection.

The announcement was made in advance of the annual conference sponsored by CTIA - The Wireless Association. AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega is scheduled to give a keynote at the conference tomororw and could use the event to further elaborate on their intentions.

The announcement is most likely a response to recent events at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is proposing new rules that would prohibit carriers from blocking apps on their networks.

A public announcement by AT&T stating that they will allow apps such as Skype on their network would remove any doubt that it's the company that is doing the blocking, and put the spotlight firmly on Apple to explain why they're not approving VoIP apps. As noted yesterday, VoIP provider Vonage has made its app available in the App Store, although ratings after the first day probably make them wish they hadn't...

It should be noted that the announcement will likely have no bearing on the fate of Google Voice, which was rejected by Apple on the grounds that it duplicates functionality already found in the iPhone. The Google Voice app allows users to control their Google Voice account, send SMS messages and check voicemails, but does not provide any VoIP functionality.

Is the cell coverage in your area not up to par? Whether you happen to have steel walls or live where there are no cell phone towers or trees cleverly disguised as cell phone towers, some of us must deal with the reality that, while we own arguably the most innovative gadget in recent years in the iPhone, we may not have had the best carrier to accompany it. One way to address this "bag of hurt" is through the Skype [iTunes link] app.

If you don't already have the Skype app, download it -- it's a free download in the App Store. Next, you'll need to make sure that Skype stays online when the screen is locked. This is accessible via the Skype app preferences within the iPhone's main settings page. After this is enabled, the Skype app continues to run in the background and maintains a Wi-Fi connection even after the sleep/awake button is pushed -- or if it's set to automatically lock after a given time interval. Second, because Skype requires a Wi-Fi connection to make and receive calls, you'll also want to make sure that whatever cell phone dead zone you're at also happens to have a Wi-Fi connection.

This workaround obviously isn't without its weaknesses. Assuming that most of those calling you would prefer dialing a phone number instead of your Skype user name, you'll likely need a separate phone number. One option is SkypeIn, which marries Skype to a real phone number. The service costs $18 for three months or $60 for a whole year. And if you happen to have a Google Voice phone number, directing your calls to your SkypeIn number is an option. Alternatively, you could forward all of your iPhone calls to said Skype number whenever you anticipate a cell phone dead zone -- say, before you enter your house, if you have bad reception there. This is accessible via the Phone preferences within the iPhone's main settings page. Doing this, you won't have to give out multiple numbers to your friends and family.

One of the other drawbacks of this alternative is that while an audible indicator (a ringing noise) is present when you're receiving a call, a visual one isn't. In other words, you may need some cat-like ears to know when you're receiving a call.

A seamless solution this is not, but it nonetheless provides a possible workaround until more cell towers are built in your area, or until a push-based solution is available for Skype.

Readers, tell us what you're doing to remedy cell reception issues. Be it a do-it-yourself tin can signal booster or anything else, let us know what's worked for you.

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]

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.

Along with Apple's and AT&T's response, Google has also responded to the FCC's inquiry on the Google Voice rejection. Unfortunately, the contact between Apple and Google on the rejection has been removed from the letter, which will not clear up everything just yet. There's no apparent reason why these details have been kept confidential. Anyway, Google's letter states first the features of their Google Voice app, mainly the standard features of Google Voice on other smartphones.

Next, in the question below, the FCC asks what Apple's explanation was for rejecting and for any communication Google has had with Apple.

What explanation was given (if any) for Apple's rejection of the Google Voice application (and for any other Google applications for iPhone that have been rejected, such as Google Latitude)? Please describe any communications between Google and AT&T or Apple on this topic and a summary of any meetings or discussion.

Google's answer to this question simply states "[BEGIN CONFIDENTIAL]" and "[END CONFIDENTIAL]"

Next, they go on to asking if Google has any other applications that have been approved on the App Store. They answer that they have Google Earth and Google Mobile (search) already approved and currently on the App Store. They also note Google provides the map data for the "Maps" application on the iPhone.

In the next question, they state that they don't have any other proposed applications pending to be submitted to the App Store.

When asked about other methods to access Google Voice on the iPhone, they answer that a user can can call in to their Google Voice number or visit Google Voice on Safari to access some Google Voice features on their iPhone.

Finally, they ask about the practices of Google's Android Market, Google's competitor to the App Store for devices that run Google's Android OS.

You can read the entire letter over at our sister site, Engadget.

The hits just keep on coming, folks: Apple has posted a full response to the FCC inquiries on its web site. It's a long document -- and oddly similar to a fake open letter written two weeks ago by Ian Hamilton -- but some of the highlights (and lowlights) include a short list of sample rejected apps (Twittelator was rejected for crashing! What a burn) and plenty more:

Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it.

Well, that's all well and good, but cold comfort to the other GV apps pulled from the store unceremoniously.

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.

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 functionality allowing an app to replace Visual Voicemail with a separate service is neither novel nor categorically banned from the App Store, as this is already available in the YouMail app. The iPhone supports standard GSM codes for conditional forwarding of calls to third-party answering services, and YouMail's app works just fine for collecting and receiving voicemail on the iPhone. There are also third-party services that sync contacts for the iPhone. The SMS component may be a new wrinkle, and the 'takes over the iPhone' approach is certainly of concern... but none of that explains clearly what changed between the time the other GV apps were approved and the 'non-rejection' hold of the official app.
Apple goes on to agree with AT&T that the carrier did not engage on any level regarding the GV apps.

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.

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.

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.

If nothing else, this is a bit more transparency into the approval process than what we've seen before.

Engadget got a copy of AT&T's response to the FCC inquiries, and to sum it up: the Death Star finds the FCC's lack of faith disturbing. The telecom giant says that it neither supported not opposed the Google Voice apps for iPhone -- in fact, Apple didn't mention the GV apps to AT&T, nor does Apple typically consult AT&T on App Store approvals. The Apple & Google responses are just coming in now.

In a section of the letter that Engadget has posted, AT&T does acknowledge rare occasions where the company has consulted on app approvals with Apple -- but only where an app might be responsible for 'significant network congestion,' like SlingPlayer. Are we to assume from this that any telephony-related geldings or rejections (ahem, no Skype over 3G) are due to Apple acting completely on its own? That's a mite far-fetched, but with any luck we'll be seeing a similar letter from Apple shortly.

Reflecting on my last post -- and how unbelievable the AT&T statement was that they have nothing to do with what gets approved in Apple's App Store -- convinced me I needed to refresh my dimming memory banks.

Remember all the flames about whether Skype would come out for the iPhone last year? Then, at the 2008 conference last year, none other than Steve Jobs told the assembled multitudes that he would love to see a VoIP application for the iPhone as long as it used Wi-Fi and not the cellular data network. That, of course, was designed to protect AT&T, and while AT&T might not have insisted, Jobs knew he couldn't allow a full version of Skype or any other similar voice client.

That caused the internet advocacy group Free Press to complain to the FCC, but nothing really happened. Now there is a new president, with a different view of net neutrality than that held by the Bush Administration. There's a new FCC Commissioner as well, Julius Genachowski.

I would expect this whole area of restricting freedom of access to be a big issue in the coming weeks and months. We may not hear what answers Google, AT&T and Apple give to the FCC queries right away, but they'll likely leak out eventually.

We may yet see some changes in some of these restrictive policies and more competition among cell phone providers and carriers. That benefits just about everyone. Perhaps the fight over crippled or banned apps like Skype, Google Voice and the SlingPlayer for iPhone has ignited a debate that could finally change things.

Earlier today, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) sent out letters to Apple, AT&T and Google, readable here [FCC's letter to Apple, to AT&T & to Google] asking each company about its involvement in the Google Voice app rejections. The agency is asking Apple to explain why the Google app was rejected and the third-party apps removed, if any VoIP apps have been approved, and whether there are general rules and regulations covering application approvals (something many developers would also love to know).

It's worth noting that none of the Google Voice apps are VoIP (voice over IP) applications in the traditional sense, as they rely on the cellular carrier's voice network to handle calls, so it's not clear if the FCC understands this or if the agency is heading down a blind alley on this particular topic.

To Google, the letter asks if any other Google apps have been accepted in the store (we know there are a few), whether Apple explains the rejection process or the reasoning behind the treatment of Google Latitude, if there are other ways to use Google Voice on the iPhone (again, a somewhat naive question, as the service works fine via touchtone commands and Mobile Safari), and lastly and most intriguingly, what the app approval process is for Android applications (should be a short answer: "C'mon in, the water's fine!").

Finally, the agency is asking AT&T how the carrier was consulted on this decision, if any VoIP applications are running on their network (again, missing the point, since GV ≠ VoIP -- more relevant that there are BlackBerry apps for Google Voice that are happily on AT&T handsets), and whether AT&T can provide a list of rejected applications on the store while detailing the role it plays in approving possible 3G-enabled services like Sling.

The FCC has given the three companies until August 21 to respond to their letters; while the overall scope of the questions betrays quite a bit of agency unfamiliarity with the workings of the Google Voice service and the App Store, any movement toward openness and clear answers is positive. Hopefully, these responses will offer some insight into the story of this whole mess that has given everyone such indigestion over the past week.

[via Engadget, links to FCC via BusinessWeek]

After writing about the GV Mobile situation on TUAW the other day, a helpful TUAW reader sent me a Google Voice invite (thanks Ian M! You rock!). I set up my account, hopped over to a jailbroken 3.0 iPod touch and downloaded a copy of the software via Cydia. I then copied it off the touch via sftp, signed it with my developer credentials and installed it through iTunes on a non-jailbroken iPhone to see what I'd been missing.

GV Mobile offers a pretty nice feature set. You can use it to set your Google Voice preferences, such as your preferred phone, so that when calls come through the right phone rings. That's an awesome feature on-the-go. Yes, the same option is available at the Voice website, but I really like the simple interface GV Mobile offers to switch that number with just a couple of taps.

You can dial directly from the app out to other phones. You still use your AT&T minutes but you avoid having to navigate through the Google Voice command interface. When the call is over, you return to the application.

The SMS and voicemail features are also very nice, each offering a dedicated screen and easy to use interfaces. A lot of design thought went into the program and it shows, especially in these two options.

Unfortunately, since the application was ported for a jailbreak install, it would no longer remember my user credentials between sessions. Be aware this approach works fine for review but isn't meant for a day-to-day bypass of the App Store, unless your Google username and password are trivial to type over and over again.

Despite the excellent number setting, SMS, and Voicemail features, I felt that most of the application features really needed to be integrated at the OS level, which they presumably will be in Google Chrome or Android. Apple provides its own OS-level telephony system and using this app for outgoing calls really felt more like work than time savings. Yes, the outgoing International rates are superb on Google Voice and the connection quality far exceeds that of Fring's SIP-based services or Skype's iPhone app. That said, I think the application could have benefited from a greater focus on the SMS/voicemail features with the telephone portion being pushed back in prominence.

The program does exhibit a few minor quirks. For example, when I tap on the call history tab, I'd prefer that it gave me a button to load that history from Google Voice rather than do so automatically and trap me, especially when I meant to hit another tab.

All said, I really did enjoy using GV Mobile. I think it has good functionality and must have been a really good App Store offering, while it was there. If you do have a jailbroken iPhone system to test it on, it's certainly worth a spin. And if you find you use it, the application is donationware.

With the recent kerfuffle surrounding the removal and rejection of Google Voice apps from the App Store, many developers are beginning to question the trust they have placed in Apple to provide them with a reliable system for developing and distributing applications.

Generally, the major hurdle associated with iPhone development is getting approved by Apple. It's no secret that this process is often quite frustrating, and sometimes downright arduous. Developers often wait several weeks without any response before they are suddenly rejected, and then they must make the requested changes (if possible), resubmit their application, and again wait for a response.

But once they have put your app through the paces, and presumably have double and triple checked to ensure that you have complied with the terms, you're safe, right? Your hard work has paid off, Apple has accepted your app, and now you can move on.

Wrong.

As the developers of GV Mobile and VoiceCentral recently discovered, Apple can take an app that was previously given the all-clear, decide that it now duplicates native functionality of the iPhone, and yank it from the App Store in a matter of minutes. Needless to say, there are some serious flaws in this process. First, the functionality provided by both of these apps isn't actually provided by the iPhone, so there's really nothing to duplicate, unless Apple is going to start expecting developers to predict future features and avoid duplicating those too. Then you have the fact that the feature sets provided by the apps and the iPhone itself have not changed since Apple approved them in the first place, so if they truly are duplicating native functionality, they should have been rejected from the start, not months after they were approved.

Now one might also argue that some features offered by Google Voice do overlap with the iPhone, such as the SMS and voicemail functions, although contrary to popular belief, Google Voice is not a VoIP service and doesn't really compete against AT&T. But even if you concede that point to Apple, couldn't they just ask the developers to remove those features and resubmit? What about the other apps -- like Skype, TextFree, or iCall -- that offer similar feature sets, are they going to disappear too? And if AT&T is really responsible for this, as has been suggested previously, why was the app pulled from the App Stores of other countries? Why not just honestly tell the developer that the app is being pulled at the request of the carrier?

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."

If you're one of the lucky ones to have scored an invite to Google Voice, check out VoiceCentral. It's a very slick application which integrates well with the iPhone, making it possible to make calls through your Google Voice (or GrandCentral) account.

Why would you want this? My primary reason for wanting an application for GV is so that I can make calls and have my Google Voice number appear on the Caller-ID.

VoiceCentral makes this a simple process. When you first install the app, it asks you to select your iPhone number on the Settings page. When you make a call through the app, it happens in two steps: 1) your iPhone rings (this is Google Voice's servers calling your iPhone), 2) your call is connected.

Why is this important? If you end up leaving a message for whoever you are calling, their voicemail system may give them the option to call you back at the number you called from. Our landline phones also make it easy to return calls from the caller-ID list. As a Google Voice user, I want those calls to go to my Google Voice number, not my iPhone.

If you're a fan of Google Voice, you know that having a central place for all of your voicemails is great. Google Voice will transcribe those voicemails (my favorite feature, although sometimes having a computer try to decipher my friend's "late weekend night" messages does lead to some interesting "translation issues").

VoiceCentral will let you access not only those voicemails (in a style very similar to iPhone's own Visual Voicemail) but if you tap on the arrow, it will also show you the transcription. You can even read the message without listening to it, which is especially handy for checking messages when you are in a meeting, a movie theater (oh, like you've never!), or anywhere loud enough that you might not be able to hear it. The transcripts can also be copied (on iPhones running OS 3.0 or later, of course) and pasted into notes or emails if needed.

As you'd expect, VoiceCentral also integrates with your existing iPhone contact list, and there's also a keypad which allows you to make calls or send SMS.

The "Send SMS" feature has had some issues, but Riverturn has a newer version which fixes the problem. As you are no doubt used to hearing by now, they are waiting on Apple to approve the newer version. It's also important to note that there is no way to designate any application except the built-in Phone app as the default, so any phone numbers which you tap from email messages or web pages will open in the built-in app, rather than in Skype or other telephony apps.

Google appears to be readying its own GV iPhone app for release, although it hasn't made it into the App Store yet. Anyone familiar with the approval process knows that could mean it is hours, days, or weeks away from being released. The Blackberry and Android apps are already available.

Is $2.99 [iTunes Link] too much to spend on an app when there may be a free alternative right around the corner? Not for me. In fact, the only thing which keeps this app from replacing the native Phone app on my dock is the lack of a "Favorites" tab, which I use for nearly all of the outgoing calls I make on my iPhone.