Google: Apple rejected Google Voice
Google Voice, shown here running on Android, was in fact rejected from the App Store, Google said Friday.
(Credit: Screenshot by Rafe Needleman/CNET)Updated 10:25 a.m. PDT with additional details, and at 10:52 a.m. with comment from Apple.
Google told the Federal Communications Commission in a redacted letter to the agency a few weeks ago that Apple did in fact reject its Google Voice application from the App Store.
Google dropped its request for confidentiality in the manner concerning the rejection of Google Voice from the App Store in July, and directly contradicted Apple's version of events Friday. In the letter (click for PDF), Google said Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Marketing Phil Schiller informed Google that the app had, in fact, been rejected, when Apple's public statements to the FCC in that month claimed it was merely still under review.
The FCC had requested information from Apple, Google, and AT&T concerning the rejection of Google Voice from the App Store in July, and all three companies sent letters that were eventually made public. But Google redacted a significant portion of its letter at the time, raising questions about what lay behind those black pixels.
Now we know. "Apple's representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone," Google said in its letter. By contrast, Apple said in July that "contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and continues to study it."
Apple stuck to that story on Friday. "We do not agree with all of the statements made by Google in their FCC letter," the company said in a statement. "Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application and we continue to discuss it with Google."
Suspicion had originally fallen on AT&T, based on the theory that the wireless carrier didn't want an application that allowed the user to make cheap international calls on its network. But AT&T claimed it had no involvement in the manner in its own letter to the FCC released in August.
Google Voice allows users to give their contacts a single number and have that number ring multiple phones depending on their location. It also translates voice mails into text, and is a popular application on Google's own Android mobile operating system.
In its letter to the FCC, Google also says that Apple rejected the iPhone native version of Google Latitude for potentially causing confusion with the built-in Maps application that ships with every iPhone. That application is an Apple-tweaked version of Google Maps, and Google said Apple believed that "the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality and potentially create user confusion."
Schiller spoke on the phone with Google senior vice president of engineering and research Alan Eustace on July 7th to inform him that Google Voice had been rejected, according to the letter. Other Apple and Google representatives met to discuss the application on several occasions between July 5th and July 28th, but Schiller and Eustace were the point men for their respective organizations, Google said.
Apple has become more open about its App Store approval process in recent weeks and months, explaining to prominent developers why certain applications were rejected from the store and shedding light on the process for the first time in its letter to the FCC.
However, the stark contrast between the public statements of the two companies will undoubtedly raise eyebrows, and give more fuel for those who believe Google and Apple are increasingly at odds, especially now that Google CEO Eric Schmidt no longer sits on Apple's board of directors.
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. 
Phones should be like personal computers. Phone companies, and Operating System companies shouldn't be telling me what I can and can not install.
I do like my iPhone, but I want Google Voice more.
No, people who purchase a piece of equipment, and then expect this and that are just simply naive, or they want to deny the fact that companies do in fact have the right to control their device. You signed the contract. You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. Bak bak bak!
Simply put. I'm the guy with the money, and I want what I pay for to work for it's purpose. Not to be crippled, pared back, disabled, and closed. Thus whil you say I shouldn't expect otherwise I activly look for just that. That's where my money will go. The OP is right and well, you are entitled to your opinion but obviously you wouldn't be selling me my phone becasue of it.
You got what you paid for, the phone and it's features. Everything else is just extras, and not part of the phone you purchased. If Apple had advertised GV as a phone feature then you'd have a right to be angry. But you didn't buy the phone with that feature, so blaming Apple for not having access to it, or being self-righteous and saying they OWE it to you is just ridiculous and self-serving.
While I see your logic, it's you that is wrong. As you said it yourself, these people SIGNED the contract, meaning that regardless of which app they choose to use, they're STILL on the hook for those monthly payments over the next 24 months. So why should't Apple open things up to some healthy competition? Unless of course it's because Apple doesn't want to share the world with Google, even as they have their hand in Google's proverbial cookie jar to begin with.
Cell phone companies are business. Their not a charity.
Considering that you probably never have (and just created your CNET account today), I don't anyone is going to, you know, care...
I said that I will switch when my contract expires. What does that mean? It means I am aware that I signed a contract and that I will abide by it until it expires but not a day longer. Apple has the right to do what they want, but I also have the right to take my money elsewhere.
Right now, my money wants me to move to an Android based phone.
The only people with a credible voice on this issue are those who don't own the iPhone. It is simple as pie!
There is not ONE person in the know who does not know how Apple does business. When someone dislikes a product, he talks about it with other people. Somehow, you were able to close your ears and eyes until you bought your iPhone. This is what you did: One day, you decided to purchase an iPhone. You either bought the phone on-line or you walked into a store and bought one. You signed a contract. You start reading up on articles like this and THEN discover the closed architecture, the way the App Store operates, etc.????
This is the root of your problem. I do not like arguing with people who own the iPhone, and then whine about it, making arguments like "mind slaves" and such. Just like purchasing anything else - you study up on the product or service. The only people who has credibility on this issue are those who did not buy into the Apple lie. Hopefully this serves as a lesson to all of you.
As for everyone else who like to "fight the good fight." I will admit that I am a conformer. I obey laws. I obey warranties. I understand that every device is designed in a way for a reason. Some of you call us "mind slaves" because we allow this type of thing to happen. I have news for you: the iPhone is JUST A DEVICE!!!! Just like Krispy Kreme is just a donut! If I spend even one hour raising my blood pressure because I can't copy a DVD, or do whatever I want with my Motorola Razr, I'm going to shoot myself. Instead, I do what most smart people do: LIVE!!!! Live because it was your biological mother and father who decided to make you. We were not born to contribute to better laws, better digital lifestyles, etc. To debate something as dumb as the iPhone - something a few years from now you won't even think about or remember - to me it is just a waste of the limited time we have on this planet.
I still blame AT&T for it though. I don't see how having Google Voice on the iPhone hurts Apple at all. They are still getting their money for the device so who cares? The only person these type of Apps stand to hurt are AT&T.
Of course, they didn't put a camera in the iPod Touch and that didn't make sense either, so maybe I know nothing.
In my business, you are told to do revisions before your work is accepted. But that is quite different than REJECTING the work, meaning no matter what you do, it wouldn't matter.
Apple clearly says that features can't duplicate core iphone features, but also tell applicants why an app isn't approved yet and what they need to do for it to be approved. That's not the same thing as a flat out rejection.
@markosph Does Apple really care that much if someone uses an App to dial instead of their dialer? There are other Apps that do the dailing for you. There are other Apps that let you browse the web inside of them and I could list them here if you'd like. Apple doesn't stand to lose anything from the Google Voice App, at least not that I can see. AT&T does however.
But that's also not the same as saying that 'it's still under review and we're continuing to study it'. Seems like there's a pretty big gulf between the two documented interpretations from GOOG and AAPL.
With some of the most ridiculous reasons you can imagine, Apple rejects apps... so why is it so hard to fathom that Apple would reject GV Mobile? Hell, they rejected Google Latitude because it would confuse people with Maps. Apple thinks you are just too damn dumb to ascertain the difference between Maps and Latitude. I mean if you are going to download and install Latitude, you probably know what it is already... not to mention I would wager a bet that the icon and name would be completely different. But nope, Apple thinks you are stupid and unable to tell the difference, so Latitude was rejected. A week or two later, GV Voice was rejected. A week or two later, Google departs the Apple board.
There are hundreds if not *thousands* of apps in the App Store that duplicate core functionality: e-mail clients, messaging clients, web browsers, address books, calendars, notepads/to-do lists, stocks, weather, clocks, audio players (streaming or not), video players (streaming or not), phone dialers, VoIP clients, maps, still cameras, video cameras, voice memo recorders, compasses, et cetera ad nauseam.
Apple, stop insulting us with your B.S. "duplicate functionality" excuse. Thank you.
Go ahead at type in "web browser" into the App Store search engine. They are all based on the WebKit engine since Apple won't let Firefox code or IE installed (Microsoft abandoned IE development on OS X ages ago). Many of them are browsers focused on anonymous browsing.
Whether or not a specific application is missing (e.g., Firefox) does not indicate that there are no other similar apps.
Why would MS bother putting IE on the iPhone. They don't develop IE for OS X anymore. And Firefox is currently being Developed for the iPhone.
There are plenty of Voip apps already for the iPhone so how is Google Voice any different. Maybe you don't know what you are talking about.
I don't really buy into the duplicated features thing myself, since there are lots of apps out there that do the same function of many of the preinstalled apps.
Core in this case means the guts embedded in the iPhone OS and essential to it, not core to GV.
If apple doesn't like that, then they shouldn't open their platform to third parties at all. If they do, but wait until developers have invested huge amounts of money in developing things, only to reject their apps for reasons that aren't clearly defined or are anti-competitive....they are just asking the government to step in.
Please change your post to correct gramer and english usage. I prefer to read in a Jamacian accent so keep that in mind while you revise your post. Your post also contains to many words. Pare a few out and perhaps we could approve it for reading. Below is an example of what's approvable. If you could kindly cow two to this demand it would be appreciated.
"Gee, Apple sure is a nice company, and clearly their letter is turth and the Google letter is all spin" Apple makes entirly appropriate suggestions in when working with developers to make their sure their applications will succede in the Apple Sponsored, and Apple Sanctioned, and Apple approved, Apple Appliction Store were Apple profits by modifying the work of others!"
I get notified every time I update my Wikipedia app that it is not suitable for children under 17. WOW! Thanks Apple!!! They could easily allow the South Park app with a parental control.
They could easily allow Google Latitude and GV Mobile, but they didn't. Latitude looks too much like Maps says Apple... WELL YEAH YOU JACKASSES!!!! They both use Google Maps!!! Problem is, Apple doesn't think you are intelligent enough to know the difference between Maps and Latitude.
Wonder if they record conversations between execs, you know for "quality control" ;]
But maybe people start to realize that other phone OS have had what the iphone lacks for a long time. An open platform. You can find a windows mobile app for just about anything and most of the time, they are free.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/windows-marketplace-for-mobile-kill-switch-details-clarified.ars
I guess the difference is that WinMo users can download apps from sources besides the Windows Marketplace for Mobile?
Google is getting too large, too dangerous and is like Microsoft it's taking over everything.
Apple has a right to dictate how their products are designed, operate and what apps are allowed on it. If you don't like it then get a new phone. I love the iPhone and I could care in the least if Google voice is on it. We really have a "sell entitlement" problem in the United States.
The only thing that we can see from outside, AT&T will lose more compared to Apple. AT&T offer sms for $5 and up, where GV will make it free.
Google is big and is getting bigger. You don't have to like google, but you should think of justification and fairness on this issue.
I've been a Windows Mobile user for maybe four to five years, and have had an iPod Touch 2G since this spring. I think the funny thing with that statement is there's never really been any restriction from Microsoft on what you can install on your device; they don't have this silly walled garden approach. That does come with its pros and cons, of course, but it's an incorrect comparison to Apple.
Oh, and if I buy an iPhone I have the right to dictate what apps are allowed on it. It's my phone and we really do have a corporate entitlement problem in the USA when they want to restrict what I can do with my bought and paid for stuff.
It's an unsupportable argument.
"Google is getting too large, too dangerous and is like Microsoft it's taking over everything.'
vs.
"Apple has a right to dictate how their products are designed, operate and what apps are allowed on it."
So your beloved Apple has right to be arrogant and dictate other people what they can do, but other companies are 'too dangerous' for doing significantly less arrogant things. GET A LIFE! It is Apple that is like Microsoft.
I care because I really like Latitude and I Google Voice is a great thing!!! Go ahead and consider Google the new evil empire while putting Apple up there on the high horse with Jesus.
"Google is getting too large and dangerous" LOL.
There has always been two groups of technology products. One was computers - desktops, laptops, netbooks etc.. The other was consumer electronics - clock radios, PMP's, cordless phones, dvd players, tv's, video game systems. If it was electronic and not a computer it was in this group.
On the one hand the computer group was expandable, customizable and was limited only by the imagination of the people using it. On the other hand the consumer electronics group was closed, controlled, like game consoles and PMP devices that were an echo system totally controlled by the manufacturers. 99% of the people respected the division of the two groups and the public rarely did anything to try to get around those boundaries.
Cellular phones were a part of the second group until the last couple of years, when people just decided they were now more like mini-PC's and therefore were totally under the persons control and not part of the manufacturers echo system anymore. The manufacturers didn't decide that, they still make the hardware, design the OS and release an SDK for the device ..... exactly like the Wii, Xbox 360 or PS3.... but for some reason in a differentiation from all previous consumer electronics people just take it for granted that they are somehow entitled to do anything they want to them and the manufacturer really doesn't have any say in it.
Personally I don't understand it. Oh I understand the whole i paid for this so I can do anything with it opinion, but that doesn't mean that every manufacturer of cellular phones out there has to go along with it. What is it that makes cellular phones different that all other consumer electronics? Why is that people respect the Xbox 360 or PS3 echo systems both of which have more units in the publics hands than there are iPhones?
They are computers. They just happen to be phones as well. Point of fact. Smart Phones have more processing power than the orginal computers. If you can stand the screen and input methods you can do real work on them with real programs.
Further proof in the pudding so to speak. PDA were treated exactly like the mini portable computers they were. When smart phones incorpated PDA functions people naturally make the transition to using the Phone as PDA which was used like a portable computer. Which of course is what it is.
You are right that the makes of products don't have to actually sell them for hte purpose the we buyers have in mind. Only the ones that want to stay in business will. Oh wait, when it comes to a phone we can't just buy them like in other countires. We have to get them from our carrier who is the one strongarming the phone maker instead of us consumers. Thankfully the FCC is looking into this. It's a problem. It's actually a problem for the phone comapny, the phone maker, and the consumer.
If I buy an alarm clock and somehow change to IC on it I highly doubt the alarm clock manufacturer is going to care. This is the case with most consumer devices. People only get in trouble when they try to re-market the modified device, such as people installing chips in a XBox and reselling them with pirated games. If you modify it yourself there are no grounds for the manufacturer to sue you. This is why there are so many console and DVD mod chip makers out there, and not one of them has been prosecuted. Only when people have re-marketed or included something pirated have people been hit with silly laws like the extremely corporate friendly DMCA. Our US laws concerning these cellular contracts just plain suck. They lock you into services which the company can pretty much change at any time (read your contacts, you'll be amazed what they can get away with) and they love to lock features from the manufacturer and charge you for them. If anything Apple, Nokia, LG, and Motorola should start suing the cell companies for modifying their devices with that poorly written proprietary firmware. Apple has nothing to lose from having GV on their phone. IMO they just don't want to tick off their carrier and go through the whole negotiation process that took so long in the first place. It?s not even a case where they can just switch to a friendlier carrier, as all of them pull the same stunts and play the same games. That?s why all the cell phone company commercials focus on signal strength and crappy family mobile to mobile calling, instead of the actual phones or features. Why people think or allow electronics to fall into a different category than anything else we buy is beyond me.
PC's from the start were something that the average person, I'm not talking a technical trained person here, could get in and play around with. Install applications, custom menu programs and different OS choices. Plus the very design of the hardware was one meant to be expanded and upgraded. People have always taken advantage of this and it is truly the norm in this type of device. Add memory, add HDD space, better graphics card, update the OS.
Consumer Electronics were a different animal. Was your Sony Walkman designed to be modified in this way? your receiver or television? game console? No it wasn't. Sure there will always be people that are driven to make it better or make it do other things, but they are not the norm for these devices.
People mod game consoles, but if you try to tell me its the norm i'll tell you with certainty it is not. The majority of console users do not mod their units, and simply stick game in them and play. Same with DVD players, TV's, Cellular Phones and AV Receivers.
What I meant about the shift in cellular phones is that they went from being in the second group, where people went to Verizon and picked up a razr, used it for a couple years exactly the way it came from the store and then got a new one. Now because of the increased spread of smartphones to non-business customers, It actually has become the norm to buy a phone, download a bunch of applications, change the UI both visually and functionally, make its something that is unique to you. And this isn't being done by those that have technical training and abilities. Its being done by your eleven year old daughter that just made her phone look like an electronic Hanna Montana shrine.
The public has shifted the norm for cellular phones. Manufacturers are just lately making the shift to catch up.
Google may do a lot of great things, but personally I feel they do many things that are not on the level also. They seem to like to bend the truth a great deal when they get involved in government agency type dealings and play all the other sides against each other to reach a desired outcome. Take the radio spectrum sales and the provisions they got placed on them by the FCC when they never intended to purchase any licenses themselves. It was all a smoke and mirror, bait and switch play to get something they wanted forced on the parties that were really interested in the spectrums.
Looking at this letter closer, it appears to me anyway, that Google tends to stretch the truth a bit in some of their examples in this letter. Saying that Google Earth is similar to the Google Maps application already on the iPhone is a bit of a stretch. Its like saying Weather Channel maps are the same as Google Earth because they both have satellite views.
The same with comparing the Google Mobile Application to doing a search through Safari. Are they saying that the mobile application doesn't really offer any benefit?
Apple, Microsoft, AT&T, Sony, pick any corporation you want and people call them evil because they actually do what they can to make profits. But the thing is they say they are trying to make money and really make no apologies for it. I find the evil you know is better than one you don't know. With Google they do some pretty iffy stuff also, they are in it totally for the money also, but always try to play things off as anything they do for profit is somehow for the good of the humanity and the betterment of all.
Kiddin' aside, I partly agree with you. If you think about it, Google Android is not an alternative. It's an equal option among the many choices you can make for mobile experiences. I think no one is really shoving anything down anyone's throat. The decision is still for the customers to make. :-)
Just leave Apple alone!!!
Then let's see which can affect which... :-D
Let me guess. Microsoft is your hero? I know, I know, you will argue that MS and/or Google have no lock in, but Apple does. This is what happens when one becomes partisan, because...
> I prefer to live in my "World Without Walls" in the clouds.
Which means your data will be sitting on their (MS or Google) servers, locked up by their software, and you will have an illusion of freedom. Good luck with that.
This is an outright LIE !
There are several that have up to 9+ hrs battery life , including the new Acer models. And cost less than half as much.
Apple is full of lies , deception.
Go Apple Go!
I love it!
Stick it to Google!
Love your clarification. I don't agree but dang if I can't respect where you are coming from.
Can somebody tell me why without sounding like a shrill for Google, Apple, or AT&T or any other religious computer movement?
It doesn't make any sense.
But basically, you add a lot of features that AT&T does not provide. I like some of them, not all, but some.
So why doesn't apple or at&t allow these features? Because it competes with them directly. So they have to kill the competition. Does that sound familiar, sound like microsoft?
1) You don't know what VOIP is
2) You don't realize that VOIP over 3G (or WiFi) will not use your mobile minutes
3) You are too rich to care about minute usage
4) You own AT&T stock and/or are a big boss there
Unfortunately, WiFi (or WiMax or whatever similar) is still not as widely available as cellular so you might still need the cellular provider's data plan to use VoIP anywhere. So for VoIP fans, VoIP on a cellphone still makes sense.
Otherwise, if non-cellular based Internet connectivity is equally as widespread as cellular, no, you don't really need VoIP on a cellphone. Any Internet-enabled device with speaker/mic and a VoIP software will do.
It is much like quoting an outrageous price to a potential customer a company just simply doesn't want to deal with. The customer would have no choice but to say no, and the company can claim they didn't turn the customer down. That's the way business is today.
Honestly, if the RIAA and phone companies started playing nicely for the consumer, I think my head would assplode!
- by Goodbye Helicopter September 18, 2009 12:05 PM PDT
- Nobody is concerned that google is mining your calls??
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by spacydog September 18, 2009 12:17 PM PDT
- Nope, google users don't mind at all about their privacy (or lack of it).
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (104 Comments)