iPhone app issue shows mobile Net growing pains

At one level, the fracas about Google's stymied attempt to bring Google Voice to the iPhone is a squabble about who gets to control the phone's user interface. But in the bigger picture, it's a fight that was destined to happen as the free-wheeling ways of the Internet arrive in a handset-sized package.

The Google Voice issue led to a Federal Communications Commission inquiry and carefully crafted, detailed responses last week from each of the companies. Those views revealed that if Google Voice hadn't catalyzed the disagreement, something else would have.

Google is a company born of the Internet. Through search, it's been able to extract immense profits by making sense of the chaos of links on the Internet. It's working to disrupt every industry from books and news to word processing and telecommunications by rebuilding them atop the Internet.

AT&T and Apple, on the other hand, are more affiliated with the "walled garden" philosophy. Carriers are accustomed to being gateways to the Internet, controlling what applications appear on a mobile phone and what Net services they connect to. And even though there's plenty of third-party software for Macs, every application for the iPhone requires Apple's approval first and iTunes only works with Apple's devices.

The way I see things shaking out, Google and its kind will prevail in the long run, for good or ill. As with the Internet on computers, it'll mostly be up to us to decide what applications to use. Today's kerfuffle shows that we're going through mobile Web growing pains right now as major players seek to establish their brands and seize the customer relationships, but ultimately this particular adolescence will pass.

Rashomon
So what did the companies say to the FCC about the Google Voice situation? That depends on who's telling the tale.

Google Voice's Web-based iPhone interface.

(Credit: Screenshot by Stephen Shankland/CNET)

AT&T said flatly it had "no role in Apple's consideration of Google Voice," though it said it sometimes does get involved when Apple is considering applications such as Pandora's music streaming service that could stress AT&T's 3G network. "AT&T has had discussions with Apple regarding only a handful of applications that have been submitted to Apple for review where...there were concerns that the application might create significant network congestion," said James W. Cicconi, AT&T's senior vice president of external and legislative affairs.

And even though Google Voice isn't a voice over Internet Protocol application that actually makes calls over the Net, AT&T also did say its agreement with Apple means Apple may not actively lend developers a hand building VoIP applications. "Both parties (AT&T and Apple) required assurances that the revenues from the AT&T voice plans available to iPhone customers would not be reduced by enabling VoIP calling functionality on the iPhone," Cicconi said.

For its part, Apple denied rejecting the Google Voice application, saying it's only studying it for now. It did withdraw other related apps such as GV Mobile, though, and did express concerns with Google Voice as submitted for approval, so clearly Google's application faces challenges within Apple.

"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 voicemail," the company said in a statement.

Google's FCC letter described what it intended with the app--a tool with an in-box to see what calls have been placed to a person's Google Voice number, to read transcripts and hear recordings of voice mail, to read SMS text messages sent to the Google Voice phone number, to add contacts, and to respond via call or SMS to any message in the Google Voice in-box.

However, when it came to the juicy bit, the description of its discussions with Apple, Google redacted the public version of its letter, saying it was sensitive information it wanted guarded from competitors. One can imagine, though, that Google isn't happy with the situation given how important Google Voice is to the company's ambitions.

What happens next?
It's hard to predict exactly what will come next immediately. Apple has given itself wiggle room by saying it's still studying the Google Voice application, so perhaps we will see Google Voice on the iPhone.

In the medium term, it's clear at least some changes are coming to the App Store approval process. Although tens of thousands of applications are available, developers have complained about issues of inconsistent application of rules, opaque communications from Apple, long approval times, and other problems. Apple has begun speaking about its App Store processes more, and it had this to say to the FCC: "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."

In the long term, I believe Google will win out because it has one powerful ally on its side: the Web.

One of the iPhone's big assets is a real browser that lets people see the Web in a form much closer to what they get on regular computers, though more slowly and on a small screen. And Apple's engineers are busy working on improvements, with faster JavaScript program execution and features such as support for built-in audio and video.

Meanwhile, Google is working as hard as it can to make the Web as powerful a foundation for running applications as possible, through its own Chrome browser and through extras such as Native Client and O3D that can let Web apps take advantage of a computer's built-in processing power.

Perhaps as important, Google is also developing and aggressively promoting its own suite of Web applications such as Gmail that benefit from the Web application work. And let's not forget it has its own smartphone operating system, Android, with a vastly more permissive application approval process.

Much of Google's work is nascent, and the Web is a primitive foundation in many ways even on a full-fledged PC. But the trajectory is clear. When Apple rejected the Google Latitude application it wanted to release for the iPhone, Google released a Web-based version instead. And there's already a Google Voice site iPhone users can reach through the Web. Today you can't listen to your messages with it, but with the built-in audio of HTML 5 and a reasonable network connection, at least some of it seems possible to me even in the near term.

Unlocking the power of the Net
AT&T sought to assure the FCC that there's nothing anticompetitive going on between it and Apple, arguing customers have abundant choices when it comes to mobile devices these days and drawing attention to Google's own technology:

"In the Google/Android model, for example, the operating system is reportedly accessible to any developer with no pre-certification process, thus allowing Google and its broadband and device partners to offer a different, competing customer experience--one that may be preferred by some consumers, but that involves its own trade-offs as the consumer bears a greater risk of malware and lower quality applications," Cicconi said.

That's a fair point, even if locked phones and two-year service contracts make changing phones a lot harder than changing TV channels. Ultimately, if a lot of people want Google Voice or other applications that tread on carriers' toes or muddle the purity of the iPhone experience in some way, they'll probably get their way through Web apps, jailbroken phones, or some more permissive combination of phone and carrier.

AT&T is also right to suggest that world might well have more issues with dangerous or bad applications, but customers won't like it when good and useful applications are blocked. Ultimately, what's tremendous about the iPhone is that it unlocks the power of the Net, not that it provides a defanged but limited version.

[doubtthat]

Seize the customer relationship? More like seize the customer. If they really wanted a relationship, they would let us do what we want with the devices we purchase. How the iPhone minions let Apple tell them what they can and can't do with their phone is beyond me. I bet they wouldn't buy an Accord if Honda told them they could only drive every other day and never more than 20 miles from their home.

[Shankland]

As an iPhone owner, my experience generally hasn't been Apple telling me what I can and can't do. The iPhone, for all its Apple and AT&T-imposed limitations, is still better than most other mobile devices in my opinion.

The Google Voice application is the first one I've encountered that's not available that I would like to have. More an issue for me is just the relatively mundane list of hardware and software and networking improvements I'd like to see (lots of dropped calls, Safari and Mail crash, battery life is short).

After my first week as an iPhone owner, my mobile Net expectations were raised dramatically, but after two weeks, the frustrations with the iPhone's shortcomings took over. I recognize it's not a full-fledged computer, but its features bring it close enough that my basis of comparison moved from "my old phone can't do this" to "my computer can do this a lot better."

[cary1]

@ Shankland
I would like to use Skype on 3G but here too AT&T/Apple has allowed it as WiFi only. On other platforms, people can install whatever app they want and use it.

Apple store is a great idea and gives a nice user experience, but Apple should allow people to install apps directly without going through App Store.

I may give AT&T benefit of doubt that they have these restrictions because of possible network congestion (though I think it has more to do with making money). Instead of making apple block these apps, AT&T should put these restrictions in their customer contracts, or they simply should not provide unlimited data plans.

All this just gives me one more reason to jailbreak my iPhone.

[lnadelma]

I still don't see why AT&T should have any say for applications that run on the iPod touch.

[notovny]

Hmm. Will Apple allow an application that will run on the iPod touch but not on the iPhone? Genuinely curious: What would one have to do to make an ipod touch-but-not-iPhone application?

[jpg27]

It doesnt matter really. The ipod touch doesn't have a 3G connection.Google would need to restrict the app to make wifi calls only.

[purpleLightning]

A well-balanced, fair-minded analysis of this situation for once, without the adversarial us vs them approach taken too often just to stoke maximum sensationalism. You do good work, Stephen.

[aslamnathoo]

Agreed... thanks for the balanced approach. Well done Stephen!

I do think you missed the potential Net Neutrality issue that is faced with these restrictions (see my comment below). Maybe you could write a follow-up piece detailing that side of this issue. I think it is an important point and one that has recently received a lot of attention from the Obama Administration.

[aslamnathoo]

This is essentially a Net Neutrality issue. I pay for wireless broadband (3G) data service. My service provider should not be able to choose what sites I surf or how I use my data service. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed. As most of us know, the principle of Network Neutrality states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

In this case, while the broadband network provider is not limiting the network access via actual IP or Firewall restrictions, they are limiting it via contractual obligations and Terms of Service. And this is not acceptable. We as customers should not stand for it and it is the FCCs role to ensure that AT&T is providing neutral internet access via their wireless broadband network.

Currently AT&T via contractual obligations with Apple and restrictive Terms of Service with their customers is not providing a neutral internet access via their wireless broadband network.

[SergeM256]

I don't think it's Net Neutrality issue, it's deceptive advertising issue. They advertise "unlimited data" plan and any reasonable person would think that unlimited means, well, unlimited. Restrictions imposed by Terms of Service is simply a way to restrict amount of data. Wireless network has very limited capacity due to limited spectrum and "unlimited data" claim is simply is not sustainable.

[Kimsh]

This is stupid. You are using a service provided by a company that has to make a profit. Its "unlimited data" means no charge by volume, as you know when you signed up for the plan. It does not mean you can do whatever you want on the data connection, that is covered in the contract you agreed to when you signed up. Coming up with this "net neutrality" trash as a reason you should not have to respect the contract you signed is childish. If you want a socialized internet get the government to build out the infrastructure. If you believe in teh American way where market forces are good for all, then suck it up and play the game. It would no more be reasonable to run an industrial kiln off a domestic power grid and expect that not to be a problem, than what you are proposing.
There is a point to the net neutrality discussion, this is not it.

[deftdrummer]

@ doubtthat: Trouble is, Apple has given us a platform that far exceeds anything currently on the market, and that goes for both phones and mobile computers. So in that regard, the iphone truly is the mobile internet we've all come to know - or so we thought. Apple has essentially given us a device that is capable of many things, and as such it should be treated that way. Opened doors to new possibilities means breaking down the walled garden eventually.

In conclusion doubtthat, I don't think you've quite developed the overall picture of how this is playing out. In fact, it is quite the opposite of "iphone minions letting apple tell them what they can and can't do with their phones." Rather, it is these same "minions" that are saying enough is enough.

[doubtthat]

It used to far exceed what was on the market, but no longer. It is a game changer for sure and I am thankful that there is finally some competition out there (Stom, Pre, Android) as that is what it will take to break down the walls.

[DrtyDogg]

As a platform it never exceeded, as an experience it did though.

[useful_worms]

Decent article. I always say this, but competition is good for everyone involved.

And I believe the above poster that made the analogy with the Honda is incorrect. It's more like Honda saying you have to buy their proprietary satellite radio service and you can't use a better, cheaper/free service. Or, you have to use Honda gasoline instead of something cheaper/better out there. Apple & AT&T aren't inhibiting people making calls, but they are making you pay more for them. And why shouldn't they? AT&T is a business. If someone finds a way to use their network and not pay for that usage, then of course they will object (whether they admit to it or not).

Everyone wants something for nothing.

[doubtthat]

Actually, it the analogy is exactly correct. You are being told what apps you can and cannot have. In this case, it is a VOIP app which I can understand AT&T maybe doesn't want, but then again, you are still burning minutes. Also, AT&T claims to have not been the ones who stopped it so it was Apple because they don't want Google changing the user interface. Well, shouldn't that be up to the user? If I want it changed, I will run the app. If I want what Apple dictated to me, then I wouldn't run the app.

[Kimsh]

If you want any control over the look and feel of your device, why would you by an Apple product?

[cvaldes1831]

Let me reiterate that the "duplicate functionality" excuse is a complete crock of B.S.

There are hundreds if not thousands of apps that duplicate functionality present on the iPhone/iPod touch: web browsers, mail, weather, stock, clock, calculator, address books, calendar, maps, music players, notepads/todo lists, music players (streaming audio), video, VoIP, messaging (including free SMS), cameras, etc.

[Shankland]

The prospect of duplicative functions fills me with less dread than it does Apple; although they have a point about trying to keep the phone's core features steady and unconfusing, the Net just offers too much to avoid 100 percent overlap. And that's before Web apps arrive. I routinely use the Gmail Web app for tasks such as searching (my archive, not just my active inbox) and archiving messages.

Worse, I think Apple went a step too far by saying the Google Voice app isn't merely duplicative. they said it *replaces* the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality. The app left those core features are unaltered, not replaced.

[TX-Toast]

Seriously these guys at Apple and AT&T need to get over themselves. As for AT&T, I get it, I see how they would feel threatened by this but let?s get real AT&T told me that they had no intents to limit Google Voice on their network and that I could always Jailbreak my phone a run any app that I would like regardless of what apple said. This is all about apple being apple. There are droves of fan boys out there that will disagree but the reality is that apple does not have our interest at heart when they do things like this, it all about apple all the time.
"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 voicemail,"
Who cares!! It is none of apples business what I do with my hardware even if it does the same thing the phone does natively. I have two stock apps on the phone Apples and Bloomberg I don?t see the difference. This is my device, the fact that I am branded as a ?terrorist? if I jail break my iphone is appalling. Apple and their lawyers need to recognize that it is there myopia that is keeping apples market share in the teens. As a share holder and apple user I wish they would pull the heads out of Steve?s ass.
I use Google voice (Grand Central) for business, it is a fantastic technology. It gives me the ability to keep my company small and mobile and at the same time have the feel and scalability of a large organization. The ability to control access to my phones to a person or a group is critical for my organization and frankly my sanity. Transcripts of Voice mail is not only a huge time saver but always adds a little humor to the day, computer sometime make the translation read like my own crazy personal Mad Libs. If you don?t have Google voice and want to see Google Voice in action call this number and yell at their Google Voice Mail. www.gvrants.com [phone]) they will but it on their site for you to read and hear.
I don?t much faith in the Gov. Frankly I feel there job is to make people?s lives harder but if the FCC can do something to getting apple to give me Google voice on my iPhone I may just show up at my local town hall meeting about health care.

[Shankland]

My favorite Google Voice transcription error: it interpreted the name of a Google PR person as "a con," as in "Hey, Stephen, this is a con." (It's the top item in the graphic above.)

[EvanSei]

go google!

[pepperpup]

Good, agnostic treatment of the subject, Steve. A related blogging came up on CNET's article concerning the top 10 most controversial apps blocked/rejected by Apple (or AT&T) from the iPhone app store. Many, like me, equated it to MS blocking third-party apps (say, iTunes, Quicktime, Safari) running on Windows OS machines. It seems fanboys blindly throw their bodies in front of critics fair points against Apple, but then scream to high heaven if MS behaved similarly for the same reasons (i.e. money). I'm a 12-year AT&T (starting as BellSouth) corporate customer and even today largely ambivalent about their service: I get 3G pretty much every where I go. I have my family on Sprint, however: no way would I spend nearly $280 (incl. tax) per month for an all-in plan from AT&T for two iPhones vs. $160 for 'two' Pres. Saving about $1,400 per year on cell service certainly helps one get over any vestiges of iPhone snobbery.

[ConfusionChris]

Ok how many millions of Touch are out there and how many millions of IPhone are there? I do believe the numbers would favor the Touch. With that being the case, shouldn't Apple focus the Apps Store more in the direction of the Touch? Another solution would be Touch Only apps. I know I'm never going to pony up the data fees for an IPhone but my Touch rarely leaves my side and I use the wifi regularly. But then again Apple has never been big on making business decisions that make sense anyway.

[dpbaker57]

I have an interesting take on the whole Apple and AT&T limiting application access and keeping the phone locked.
http://chitownthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/08/apples-iphone-policies-are-nearly.html

[shryx86]

forget all of this "I need an app for that" and just navigate to google.com/voice on the iphone/touch and use the service through the browser. i'm surprised no one has mentioned this before. you can send texts, call, read texts, and check the voicemail. anything the site can do can be done on the phone through the browser.