We've been hearing a lot about a new mouse from Apple lately, and earlier today images and additional documentation about a new Apple Wireless Keyboard and Mouse (using Bluetooth) showed up in the FCC database. The new keyboard has a model number of A1314, while the mouse has a model number of A1296. The dimensions of the new wireless keyboard are smaller than the current Apple Wireless Keyboard, particularly in the distance between the top and bottom of the keyboard. There are still few details on the new mouse at this point.

The FCC images were quickly pulled from the FCC database, then re-added later in the day with details cropped out, but they can still be found in all of their original glory over on our sister site Engadget.

[via Engadget]

Maybe the submissions by Apple, Google and AT&T helped, or maybe they hurt, but the FCC is going to take a closer look at the U.S. cellphone industry and if competition is helping consumers. [Link to FCC announcement in PDF format]

Today the Commission said:

As communications technologies and services become more essential, and the communications market more complex, information is key to consumer protection and empowerment. The Commission seeks comment from communications service providers, academic researchers, consumer groups and third-party analysts on how best to ensure consumers have the information they need to make informed decisions in the communications marketplace.

The FCC has been particularly interested in the Google Voice app for the iPhone, which Apple has said is still undergoing scrutiny. The FCC has questioned AT&T about whether or not it advised Apple to not approve the app. AT&T has denied it had any say.

AT&T has admitted it is wary of apps like Slingbox Mobile, and that app was rejected by Apple, then allowed back in for sale, but without access to the 3G network.

It's pretty clear that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski thinks there is more to be done to get consumers the best deal, and he's putting the cellular carriers on notice that they will be closely looked at.

Readers: Are you happy with cellular service as it stands today? Do our friends in Europe get a better deal?

Now this will be interesting to watch. RealNetworks, not always best of friends with Apple, is submitting an iPhone app so subscribers can access the Rhapsody music service.

The app is designed to be full-featured, and will let Rhapsody subscribers get easy control of the on-demand music service. Real Networks has described the app's operation on its Rhapsody blog:

You'll see a menu bar across the bottom of the screen, as is found in many apps. You'll have the option to check out the queue, your library, browse the Rhapsody library (ahem, all 8 million + songs of it), search, and settings. The app has all the functionality of the client, or Rhapsody.com, only super portable.

The Rhapsody app is designed to stream music over 3G, EDGE or Wi-Fi networks. If approved, it will require a Rhapsody To Go account, which is US$15.00 per month. Spotify, a similar European music service, also has an app awaiting approval for the iPhone.

Apple already allows the Sirius/XM app, which is a different, but still a paid subscription service, and of course Pandora, Last.fm and other streaming music services.

All these apps are competition to iTunes, so the world will be watching to see if Apple draws the line with RealNetworks, or keeping a careful eye on the FCC, approves it.

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.

It's going to be interesting to watch the next few weeks as AT&T, Apple and Google respond to the FCC questions about which apps get approved for use on the iPhone.

Yesterday, AT&T responded to press questions about this by sending a P.R. email.

"AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it."

You betcha. The problem is that AT&T already publicly copped to keeping the Slingbox software off the Apple iPhone, while letting other bandwidth eaters like YouTube and MLB At Bat live video run without interference. And of course the Google Voice app and the Slingbox app are running fine on BlackBerry phones on the AT&T network. Slingbox is also running on Windows Mobile Smartphones. In conversations with one of the Slingbox developers, I was told Apple was fine with the app until AT&T got involved.

Of course, looking at the statement, it is carefully worded. AT&T does not manage or approve applications. Correct enough. In the case of the Slingbox software, they told Apple to knife it. I don't think the FCC will be amused by that particular dodge.

One wonders about the deteriorating state of friendship between Apple and AT&T. Recently, AT&T hinted that they don't expect to be the exclusive iPhone distributor forever, and Apple certainly held them up to a bit of ridicule at the June developer conference on MMS and tethering.

It must be fun on those Apple/AT&T conference calls as they prepare their responses to the FCC.

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]

Here's a shocker, folks, the FCC has approved the iPhone. What does this mean? It means that Apple can now legally sell the iPhone in the US, so all should proceed according to plan.

You can check out the report yourself, though you shouldn't expect to find anything that we don't already know about the iPhone in those boring, boring pages.

[via Engadget and a slightly creepy telephone call]

Perhaps Apple should have sent the FCC a request of confidentiality for their request for confidentiality on the iPhone. Engadget has found a copy of Apple's request to the FCC to keep the iPhone under wraps. Whether or not they will (or can) keep Apple's big play into mobile phones quiet remains to be seen, but Engadget quickly speculates at the possibility of slip-ups like this, as well as quick-to-rip off competition from Asian manufacturers, sparking an early release from Apple.

Could June 15th easily become March, April or May 15th? Only time can tell. For now, however, it looks like the FCC might be our best bet for more leaky iPhone bits.