AT&T denies squelching Google Voice for iPhone
Updated at 3 p.m. PDT with additional information and background.
AT&T told federal regulators on Friday that it played no part in Apple's decision to keep the Google Voice application from the App Store, while Apple said it never actually rejected the application.
In response to inquiries from the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T's Jim Cicconi, senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs, told the agency, "Let me state unequivocally: AT&T had no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store."
Google Voice, which allows users to receive calls placed to a single telephone number in multiple places and make cheap international calls, was deemed unfit for App Store inclusion in July, after it was released for BlackBerry and Android smartphones. Several days after the story broke, the FCC requested that AT&T, Apple, and Google all comment on what led to the exclusion of Google Voice.
Apple, for its part, claimed that the application was never actually rejected. "Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and continues to study it. 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 voice mail," Apple said in a statement.
Google also filed a letter in response to the FCC inquiry but redacted a significant portion of that letter when releasing it to the media. A PDF copy can be found here.
Suspicion immediately fell upon AT&T after the Google Voice application did not make it through the approval process, based on the fact that the application lets users bypass hefty rates on international calls. AT&T has also been believed to be behind the delay or rejection of several other applications that could have placed a strain on its network, such as Sling Media's SlingPlayer Mobile application.
But AT&T said it has little influence over the approval process.
"AT&T was not asked about the matter by Apple at any time, nor did we offer any view one way or the other. More broadly, AT&T does not own, operate, or control the Apple App Store, and is not typically consulted regarding the approval or rejection of applications for the App Store, or informed when an application is approved or rejected," Cicconi said in the letter, a PDF copy of which can be found here.
Still, Apple said it's not like AT&T is an innocent bystander.
"There is a provision in Apple's agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T's cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol) session without obtaining AT&T's permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T's customer terms of service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T's cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration," Apple said in its statement.
Skype, perhaps the most well-known VoIP service, seized upon part of AT&T's letter that promised a review of policies regarding VoIP apps running on 3G network as a hopeful sign that Skype would soon be allowed to work on cellular networks.
"We welcome AT&T's willingness to take a fresh look at authorizing VoIP capabilities on the iPhone over AT&T's 3G network," Skype said in a statement e-mailed to reporters. "Skype hopes this is a step forward in enabling consumers to be able to use Skype together with their iPhones and 3G connections and looks forward to hearing more about any potential change to AT&T's policy, in connection with the pending FCC proceeding related to the Skype petition."
As for Google's part, its decision to redact a key portion of its letter to the FCC will raise many eyebrows. The company asked the FCC to redact its part of its answer to the FCC's because "the redaction information relates specifically to private business discussions between Apple and Google and, as such, it constitutes commercial data 'which would customarily be guarded from competitors'...The Internet service industry is highly competitive, and the redacted material relates to business and operations of Google, warranting protection from disclosure under the commission's rules," Google said in a letter to the FCC asking for confidential treatment.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
As I said prior to deletion. Apple was responsible, not AT&T. Apple claimed that it interfered with Visual Voicemail, would confuse iPhone and they were concerned about contacts being uploaded to some sinister Google server. So it's better said SUCK IT APPLE, not AT&T.
Apple has a contract with ATT that does not allow them to approve apps that do X, Y and Z. Can't bypass text messaging fees, can't stream from other networks, can't bypass any ATT calling features. See the way AOL and Yahoo Chat work, or Sling Player, etc.
If Apple approves apps that violate the contract, do you think ATT will just smile and say no problem? So to claim that ATT had "nothing to do with the app rejection" is pretty inaccurate. Apple's contract with ATT says otherwise.
Or is it just the short-sighted hope that Fedzilla will force them to do one thing you like now, with no regard to the thousand new layers of control it will lead to?
You can walk away from AT&T, or Apple, or Google. You can't walk away choose not to interact with government when it dictates something...
Why single out AT&T? Apple has been very consistent on matters involving IP streaming. In short, Apple approved apps such as Skype, SlingPlayer, Nimbuzz and iCall - all of which support IP streaming like VoIP and video. The only restriction is that they work only on wifi and not via the 3G network. And I believe this is consistent with ANY carrier that handles the iPhone, not just AT&T. This is not a matter the FCC should even be involved in. Carriers have a right to shape the way bandwidth is utilized on their service.
for one LAST time,
google voice is NOT voip.
it does not use cellular data for call
it use your minutes for call.
"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," Apple said in a statement."
It's tantamount to Google replacing the Finder, Safari, Mail, Calendar, Address Book etc. in OS X with Chrome OS, including changing the look and feel of the OS.
At what point is it no longer iPhone OS? Will Apple be required to offer tech support for Google's changes?
There are a lot of legal questions and logistical questions involved here. On a typical phone, once you buy it, you are abandoned in terms of support, but the iPhone hasn't been that way.
Google didn't approve full Skype app. So, why should Apple
Yet that's what Apple and open source fanbois scream about with Windows. They want Microsoft not to "bundle" their own versions of these apps. It's funny how it's paramount that the Apple experience is preserved but it doesn't matter for other devices or OS's.
1. Apple doesn't block most of those types of changes on OS X because it's an operating system. My point was that Apple also won't support those changes if you want help. And they DO block interface changes that would alter the way OS X works.
2. The iPhone is an integrated device, not an operating system that 90% of the world has to use. The iPhone isn't a monopoly, and Google certainly isn't some small company that can't compete. Apple didn't release an operating system that runs on all kinds of hardware, then after the fact, deny other people access. They released a phone with an OS and integrated features and then AFTER THE FACT, open up that platform to supporting applications from other companies.
Google has their own competing products, both on their own OS and on other OS's. And their application for an iPhone app is still pending, subject to the app following the rules of the application process. It sounds as if there are things Google needs to change, but Google doesn't want to change them because they want to REPLACE the iPhone interface with their own.
What Google is doing is trying to "take over" another already popular platform with "free" products. Apple doesn't have any obligation to allow another large corporation to take over their product. Google can build their own product. Whoops, they DO have their own product, so why should they care if Apple allows them? Just dismiss the iPhone as a toy like so many others have done and move on.
Once again Apples programmed users think whatever Apple says is good for them, is.
I've been happy to see some Apple users breaking out of this rut lately, and realizing how much better their experience on the iPhone could be if Apple kept their nose out of it.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/apple_claims_new_iphone_only
Engadget has Google's filing
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/21/atandt-tells-the-fcc-it-had-no-role-in-removing-google-voice-fro/
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/
Why in the hell did Fart Phone get published then?
What will be interesting to see is if this stops the chorus of immediately blaming AT&T for anything that's even close to wrong with the iPhone.
You would think that there wouldn't be a problem with AT&T allowing for the app to be approved. On the other hand, if there is a turf war started between Apple and Google about getting the calls ported/processed, and where it may end up taking place (anticipated some time in the future), well that makes a lot more sense as to who might be stonewalling.
Apple had no problem going public with their reasoning. Like it or not, it seems their statement is pretty clear -- we are not going to approve an app that turns an iPhone into a GooglePhone.
So why is Google reluctant to publicly reveal its side of the rejection story? It's not like they have any incentive to cover Apple's behind on this.
As I've said before, blogs are amazing bullsh*t magnets.
That's nice, but GV isn't VoIP, so why bring it up?
AT&T: we already have a contract that forbids Skype or any other streaming app over our network (other than Apple's YouTube app)
Apple: We don't like Google changing our user experience so we will reject, I mean, evaluating it.
Google: We want special treatment from Apple, if we don't get it, we will tell everyone that Apple don't play fair.
What a bunch of slippery b@stards these people are.
ATT forbids these kinds of apps, and place the burden on Apple to accept or reject them. Apple would happily not only allow Skype on the iPhone unrestricted, but have their own iChat client, both of them bypassing SMS and MMS networks. But ATT won't allow it by contract. So Apple has to reject those apps and stifle their own development.
This doesn't explain why GV Mobile/Voice Central/etc. were pulled from iPod touch users nor does it explain why RingCentral Mobile was left available on the App Store (the RingCentral service is very similar to Google Voice).
B.S., B.S., and more B.S.
It's just B.S.
But, hey, who the hell am I? Not a judge so I guess I am one of those millions who has a gun held to me head - forced to buy Microsoft everything. Idiots.
- by VoiceOfLogic August 21, 2009 9:11 PM PDT
- "But AT&T said it has little influence over the approval process."
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (84 Comments)aHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHA! Yea right. What a ******* crock of lying **** they are. Ask Slingbox how LITTLE influence. Right. WhatEver. ATT corporate liars.