Google vs. Apple: Who's telling the truth?
First it was Steve Jobs' health. Then it was the layoffs earlier this year. Now the Google Voice rejection. Apple's credibility is being questioned yet again.
Anyone who deals with Apple on a regular basis knows it is a company that gives information on its own terms. But now even the federal government is having problems getting a clear answer regarding Apple's rejection of the Google Voice application for the iPhone.
On July 28, Google announced that the calling and message service application had been rejected from Apple's App Store. Three days later, Google, Apple, and AT&T, the iPhone's exclusive carrier in the U.S., received inquiries from the Federal Communications Commission regarding the app's rejection. In its answer to the FCC, Apple said that the application was not rejected, but was still "under review." In Google's response--the most interesting parts redacted until Friday--it told the FCC that a series of conversations took place between Apple Senior Vice President of Marketing Phil Schiller and Google Senior Vice President of Engineering Alan Eustace during the month of July, including one on July 7, where Schiller told Eustace that Google Voice was being rejected for duplicating the phone dialing function of the iPhone.
The discrepancy between what Google said and what Apple said in their answers to the FCC, of course, leads to many more questions. In response, Apple released the following statement Friday:
"We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter. Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google."
So basically we have a classic he said, she said situation between two companies known to (formerly?) enjoy a close relationship: Google says it was told the application was rejected, by one of the highest-ranking people at Apple. Apple says the app wasn't rejected. So Apple is either: a) insinuating that Eustace somehow misunderstood what Schiller said, or b) suggesting that Google is lying, or c) being picky about how it's parsing words.
Perhaps "rejected" doesn't mean the same thing to Apple as it does to everyone else. While that sounds kind of silly, quite frankly, it's not outside the realm of possibility of how Apple is thinking. Perhaps Apple is planning to formalize such a category of App Store approval status where applications are neither approved nor rejected. Other applications have languished for months, but their developers have been unclear on what has caused the delay.
It's not impossible, of course, that Google misunderstood, or is itself misleading the FCC, though it's unclear why that would be. Especially since at the point when Google initially said Google Voice was rejected by Apple, Google CEO Eric Schmidt was still sitting on Apple's board of directors. (He has since resigned.) But this is also not the first time there's been the perception that Apple has been less than forthcoming on important matters.
Who could forget the uproar over Jobs' physical appearance last summer and his top spokesperson's response that he was "suffering from a common bug"? It came out later that he was having serious medical problems that resulted in a liver transplant earlier this year.
In March, when rumors swirled that some sales employees got laid off, Apple representatives denied the reports. The people who lost their jobs later came forward to confirm the reports.
And just last week, observers of the company wondered if Jobs purposely misled The New York Times when he told them they did not put a camera in the iPod Touch because it didn't make sense for customers--speculation that heightened after a tear-down revealed space for a camera sensor in the updated design.
Apple has a lot of sway in several industries and makes products that people like. But customer confidence in your ability to be forthcoming is important, especially when it comes to making a successful sales pitch for, say, an iPod Touch sans camera, when there could be a new model with a camera coming soon that's just been delayed because of manufacturing problems.
But there's also the reality that a lot of customers just flat out don't care. Apple has a particularly loyal fan base, and to date the company's bottom line hasn't shown distaste for deception or misleading information.
Erica Ogg is a CNET News reporter who covers Apple, HP, Dell, and other PC makers, as well as the consumer electronics industry. She's also one of the hosts of CNET News' Daily Podcast. In her non-work life, she's a history geek, a loyal Dodgers fan, and a mac-and-cheese connoisseur. E-mail Erica. 
While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a 'lie', the fact that the new Touch was strongly suggested by Apple's actions to include a camera were supported by a teardown of the new model, along with case manufacturers who released new cases to fit the new model with a cutout for the camera. Those same case makers using information provided by Apple.
Go ahead and search on CNET here and you'll find plenty of information on this subject.. Since Apple has never acknoweldged anything publically, it's up to you to decide for yourself waht to believe.
There's only rumor - nothing from Apple has said they would (or even hinted at) doing so. You have admitted as much yourself, when you wrote: "Since Apple has never acknoweldged[sic] anything publically[sic]", my point stands.
Your point can't stand as it has no base to stand *on*. The Touch was even torn down and compared to the 3GS and the space and traces for the camera are there. You don't thihnk it's just a wee bit suspicious that Apple would put a camera on a music only iPod and not on the Touch... even after third party case makers started making cases using the designs that Apple provided to them?
Gotta open your eyes to the obvious sometimes. Remember Apple will never admit to anything. That's the problem.
Is it possible that Apple was providing design details that would allow a common-denominator style case to be produced?
Is it possible that the circuitboard design was based on the iPhone and simply had non-iPod parts removed?
There are many reasons to explain why the iPod Touch doesn't have a camera, despite plenty of rumours saying that it was definitely going to have a camera there.
As if Google would allow its competitiors do whatever they want on Google's phone
Screw google. Another monster in the making...
Now to start with they should turn off support for google maps app running on the iphone.....;-)
Also, don't forget about the iPod touch. There are about twenty million iPod touches out there (over 30 million iPhones). The iPod touch demographic is younger than the iPhone demographic and the former download more apps than the latter.
There is currently no iPod touch equivalent running Google Android.
As far as Google sticking to Android, it's kind of funny seeing that the built in Google Maps and You Tube apps were big selling points for the iPhone.
Google may be a monster in the making (if it isn't all ready), but I don't need Apple to "protect" me by preventing me from installing an app I want to use on my own phone.
When the iPhone first came out, Steve Jobs was so cocky, about the competition being years and years behind. Ha, now he doesn't know how to avoid this problem of actually having an app that is better than anything Apple can create. My how the tables have turned. Maybe if apple didn't rest on it's laurels, maybe it wouldn't have this problem.
Mobile platforms should be as open as possible. You wouldn't like it if Apple prevented you from putting any non-Apple programs on your mac so why don't you mind when they are talking about your iPhone? You do own it after all.
Errr, you do realize that Google's OS's are open source, right?
Android, Chrome, the upcoming Chrome OS are all open source, so not only would google allow anyone to create any app for these products, they have actually given rights to their competitors to use the code to compete directly against google if they choose to.
Maybe you need to read up on how open source works?
http://source.android.com/posts/opensource
True, Google can pull apps from the Android Market, but this is really about what Google wants to distribute (usually for legal reasons). You can still put software on your phone that Google doesn't carry in the Market.
Simply put, your argument is baseless and wrong.
Indeed, given the size of dominance in the portable media player market, Apple runs the same risk with the iPod, since the iPod is so tied to the iTunes software for the most part.
Google Voice was (and maybe still is) an invite only service because Google was still evaluating how it was going to effect it's servers/business and you are up in arms about Apple not yet accepting the product only a couple months after it was sent in for approval? Are you people really that impatient? Apple made the statement that it had not been rejected because it HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED. It may get rejected but odds are that before the end of the year Apple will let it in as long as it doesn't cause too much of a problem for AT&T.
It amazes me that the open Android OS has denied most of the same applications that Apple keeps getting accused of being "closed" for having rejected. Tethering Applications, Voip over 3G Data, and porn. Google states that about 1% of the applications submitted are banned. That would means with the number of applications on the iPhone Apple would have had to rejected almost a thousand applications to keep pace.
Apple's closed system has allowed subscription Music services, Voip (over wifi) and a host of others people never expected. Once they OK google voice what will you all have to use as an example of the "evil walled garden" that is the iPhone?
Go read the transcripts from the FCC submissions. It's really quite simple: Apple's reviewers don't know how to review the product, and while they're swamped with applications to review they've put Google Voice on the backburner.
As soon as AT&T rolls out their faster 3G network, expect to see Google Voice get approved. Would you use Google Voice for iPhone on the AT&T network as it presently stands?
I'd like to ask Erica if she knows any corporation that does not give information on its own terms? Does she demonstrate, with her own reporting, that cnet itself is very good at giving information on its own terms?
personally the whole thing is just exciting for me, these are two of the best tech companies that have been avoiding serious competition at all costs, now that their relationship isn't so rosy i think everybody wins
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/apple-fastest-computer-in-the-world-ad-pulled-by-bbb-20040329/
Sometimes when Apple is onto something, they don't mind the freedom to stretch the definition of things a little bit :)
But yeah, you are right. Those commercials that say there threat is LOW (not zero, just low) are obviously a lie.
It doesn't matter what one VP says to another over the phone.. It matters what protocol was followed. While im not naive enough to think a VP can't deviate from protocol, if the paper trail indicates that the app was not officially rejected (protocol).. it wasn't rejected (technically/legally).
I wouldn't be surprised if the DOJ is involved at some point soon unless Apple does some major opening up to the investigations.
Instead of worrying about that, this idiot should of thought of that when they chose ATT as the damn carrier!
LET ME INSTALL AND DO AS I PLEASE with my IPHONE, Unless you are going to pay for my Bill You IDIOT.
does anyone have his email address?
this got me mad
Exhibit A: Apple also pulled at least two previously approved third-party Google Voice apps: GV Mobile (by Sean Kovac) and VoiceCentral (by Riverturn). If those outright removals aren't rejections, then I don't know what is.
Apple will ultimately lose the fight. It's only a matter of time before Google Voice comes to the iPhone. Why? There are too many factors working against Apple for it to maintain its anti-consumer stance on this issue.
* The FCC is investigating the matter, and it's a safe bet the Feds aren't keen on Apple's handling of Google Voice. In fact, the FCC may very well interpret Apple's actions as a violation of Net neutrality principles -- essentially, that ISPs shouldn't block or impair the ability of consumers to use Internet services -- and ultimately pressure Cupertino to soften its stance on Google Voice. While one could argue that Apple isn't an ISP, the company certainly is a major player in the wireless industry.
Before Apple introduced the iPhone?
http://counternotions.com/2009/08/26/pre-iphone/
- by luke_marsh September 19, 2009 2:33 AM PDT
- who cares about crud lossy compression it's so 2008.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (84 Comments)rule 30 so complex year right pull the other one.
Primes here I come.