FCC queries AT&T, Apple on Google Voice iPhone app rejection
By Ross Miller 
posted July 31st 2009 7:32PM
posted July 31st 2009 7:32PM
Yeah, we're pretty much all peeved by Apple suddenly ejecting all traces of Google Voice from the app store, but now it looks to have drawn the ire of the Federal Communications Commission, as well. According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, the agency has sent out three letters, one each to Apple, AT&T, and Google. To the latter company, it asked for a description of the Google Voice app and whether previous Google apps have been approved for the store (it has, but that's another interesting story). To Cupertino, it's asking the phone manufacturer to explain itself over the sudden exorcism and what involvement, if any, AT&T had in this decision. The report doesn't make a direct indication of what the letter to the carrier said, but we can imagine it's similar to what Apple got, plus some doodles at the end of a stick figure letting out an exasperated sigh. In a statement today, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said it "has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment." Hey Julius, while you're at it, can you see about Skype and Slingbox for us, too? Thanks.
Update: TechCrunch has published the three letters sent out, all very interesting reads. The FCC asks Apple specifically if any approved VoIP apps are allowed to be used over AT&T's 3G network, and more generally what are the "standards for considering and approving iPhone applications" and more details into the approval process. It also asks for the contact information of all developers of rejected Google Voice apps, presumably for further investigation. In the Google letter, it seems to be asking if Voice will be able to be utilized in any capacity over the web, without inclusion in the iTunes store. Unsurprisingly, a number of questions to Apple and AT&T concern the carrier's involvement in which apps or types of apps get rejected. All companies have until August 21st to respond and can request confidentiality on all or portions of their response.
Update 2: AT&T spokesman Brad Mays has sent us a statement denying any involvement in the app store process: "AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it," he says. That said, its involvement in Slingbox's rejection certainly does raise some eyebrows here.
I personally don't think AT&T has much to do about this. Apple is very capable of being snobs on their own. Too bad that Apple and AT&T were allowed to have such a long and tedious contract with each other. I am glade th FCC is finally reacting to what is obviously a pick and choose attitude on applications. I guess as long as those applications don't step on Apple's or AT&T shoes their OK.
I guess I can see why AT&T could have a interest this. They have supplemented the iPhone big time and maybe they are protecting their turf. Another reason why this whole thing is bad for consumers.
FCC actually does its job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Impressed........
Now start working on Net Neutrality/Telcos/Mobile/Hard-wired Broadband! I like this.......if the FCC sprang to action like this more, we would have a way better market......
I can imagine the sweet mobile VoIP right now.......and interconnected future...........
And the only enemy that the FCC should have are those who would lose money because they would be forced into being fair.... (AT&T, I'm looking at you.....Vz too.....perhaps others as well....)......But the public (who the FCC is supposed to serve) would be happier......especially the tech community, the one that creates technology, nurtures it, and looks over it. (at least that's how it should be, but not always is that the case thanks to patents.....etc....)
There has to be some sort of fairness wether it's a private business or public. The same thing applies for private business like car insurance, if there is an issue where private large businesses are ignoring you (the consumer) or treating your case unfairly there is a federal office you can report the involved companies to. They (the private business) do not have to respond to the federal office's inquiries but they would because it is within their best interest to because it really looks bad on their record. This information gets posted to the public as treating customers unfairly and they (the private business) will lose more business that way.
I, for one, am with the FCC on this. If there are other apps in the iTunes store that have the same features as the Google Voice App, then this shouldn't be an issue.
My personal opinion is AT&T put the pressure on Apple to reject the GV app because Google is a monster company. Other small companies like Textfree Unlimited and other VoiP apps can make a profit with free SMS texts and not deter from AT&T's market share and profit. And I say this because I spoke with a AT&T rep the other day and he agreed on how ridiculous the rejection of the app was but in the end, AT&T will be at a loss, not Apple, but since they have an exclusivity partnership, AT&T rises together and falls together.
I really hope they approve the GV Voice app. That way AT&T would really think of other ways to be competitive rather than sitting pretty on a coveted item like iPhone with horrible services (i.e. dropped calls!!!)
The airwaves are a publicly owned asset. Like water and air. They are regulated as a public resource. ATT is granted permission to use this limited resource by the people. The FCC is there to regulate this use of public assets. If ATT is not obeying their agreement, the FCC should step in.
http://www.withinstinct.com
I think that Apple's decision to reject Google's Google Voice application is stupid and a bad business decision, but I don't see where the government (the FCC) has the right to interfere. The consumer is not forced to use Apple's phone or AT&T's network. If you really want a phone that offers a Google Voice solution you are free to use a Blackberry or Android device. If you don't like Apple's ecosystem, then don't use it. But just because Apple doesn't work they way you like doesn't mean the gov't should be able to force Apple to do so. How about letting the market work, and let consumers vote with their wallets.
"any movement toward openness and clear answers is positive"
Not when it comes at the point of a gun. Government should stay out of this.
No they shouldn't... No one wants a monopoly. If you want to keep giving AT&T (or whomever your provider is) $20 a month for unlimited SMS (and lack of MMS) then by all means continue to do so... But the rest of us, that's not acceptable.
Glad the FCC is stepping in... They should look into overpriced text messaging next! Small companies like MetroPCS offer unlimited text messages for about $3-5 per month... why can't AT&T? Oh yea that's right... there are Million$$$ of reasons why they can't
Why should AT&T (or any other vendor) graciously throw away millions of dollars because YOU don't like their fees? AT&T is in business to make money. If you don't like their costs then you're free to use another vendor (like the one you mentioned). Let the market decide, not the government.
I think that the FCC should look at whether this was done as a result of AT&T pressure and take steps if it was due to illegal activities.
On the other hand I do not want to see anything come to pass where the FCC or any other group has any say it what a private company sells in their store. The App Store is Apples place of business as much as your local WalMart is theirs. No one should ever be told you have to sell "X" product in your store. No one can make the claim that the absence of a google app or sling app does a serious harm to the public welfare. It is not the publics right to have whatever they want in a store just because they want it. The public is not entitled to have an app on the iPhone just because it is available on another brand of phone. Same as WalMart should not be forced to sell Playboy just because the store down the street does.
Apple has every right to approve or deny any application they want in the App Store as long as they tell the developer why it is being rejected. That is maybe the one thing that I would like to see out of this, that there be a standardized form of rejections created. Maybe something like the credit rejections letters are now, that describes in brief what the reason is, but not too heavy on detail and then Apple or any other application store operator would have to create a website where you can check for detailed explanations and specifics. All mandated by law if you choose to operate that type of business.
The reason Apple is so vague on why these products are being rejected... Saying things like "duplicates functionality" or "causes confusion"... Is because they know it wouldn't fly if they were to come out and be honest with their developers/consumers. Look at how quiet Apple and AT&T are being on this... Neither of them wants to step up to the plate and be honest about it. It's good the FCC is stepping in. Now maybe these companies will grow a pair and show some integrity.
Well, I guess I should have clarified my comments a little on the rejection information. I do actually believe that "duplicating functionality" is a very good reason to reject an application that is not free. If the majority of the functions of an application are just making calls to the phones operating systems already included functions and does not offer any new functions and therefore no real "value" to the customer, i am very much ok with them rejecting it for that reason.
Even if it doesn't use the supplied OS functions but does the exact same actions and does not offer anything additional in the way of functions I would still be fine with them rejecting the application. Especially if the developer of said app wants to charge the customer $9.99 for the application.
I just want them to say so in that case, and reference the functions that it duplicates or the lack of the application adding any real value to the user experience.
It is their store, they should have the right to say what is sold there. If they don't want to have it be a dumping ground for every craptastic application that gets made its their right to do so. I don't care if there there are 100,000 applications in circulation atm in the jailbreak community, if Apple wants to limit the store to the 1000 apps they feel are the best for their customers then its their right to do so without having to justify it to anyone.
Simply send a message to the developer saying "duplicating functionality" and then on the website list the functions that are duplicated.
Not true; the phones are PURCHASED, not leased, and thus, it is the CONSUMERS choice in how that thing that belongs to them can be used. In no other realm do companies define how you can use a product you buy outright. Imagine if PC manufacturers could mandate which operating systems could run on them? Of course, their liability is only extended to use in the manner described, but beyond that, it is YOUR product. Additionally, its for this exact reason that I think OS manufacturers (apple) should not also be allowed to make exclusions to which hardware it can run on (ala MS). It is a conflict of interest to allow these very separate products (OS and hardware -- phone, carrier, os, store) be the same entity. This is another example of Apple's fascism. As soon as BMW has an adapter for Zune instead of iPod Im officially firing everything apple.
The App store and the iPhone are not the same thing. You do NOT purchase the store when you purchase your phone. It is a SERVICE they provide for the purchasers of their phones. The purchase of the phone does not entitle you to even have an app store and Apple was in no way required to ever release a developer SDK in the first place or make third party applications available through the store.
Also restrictions on the use of purchased items is something that is pretty much universal in all products, not just cell phones or computers. DVD players and movies that are regionally coded for example. I consider that new DVD I bought on Tuesday to be mine, but there are plenty of restrictions placed on its use. Game consoles are tied to their own online gateways. Thongs can't be worn by middle aged over-weight and balding men, wait there isn't a restriction on that one ..... but there should be.
Point is there are a lot of items you use every day that have their own set of restrictions placed on them by the manufacturer, or on the manufacturer by some other group and you deal with it just fine. But get into the techie area of OS's, computers and smart-phones and everyone thinks it should be the wild west again with no law and wide open ranges.
Why in the hell is denying applications for any reason other than MALICIOUS code or content right? I swear people with Apple devices don't understand why the rest of the world thinks- not scratch that, KNOWS they are crazy for consenting to being controlled by corporations.
You are not being protected, you are being neglected... take the Red Pill and get out of the Matrix already!
Apple has every right to approve or deny any application they want in the App Store for any reason whatsoever. They don't even have to give a reason. If they don't like your name, they can reject it. THEY ARE A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. What the hell do you people not understand about this.
Let me put it another way; if you owned a pet store, you can accept or reject what products YOU want to carry. Moreover, if you sell an item with a guarantee, how would you respond if that consumer went running off to the government to change the terms and then forced you to?
Oh, but this is different, will be your likely response. Bullshit.
To be honest, I hope AT&T and Apple gets nailed for this, take penalties and so on. I don't know, even though I won't even have an iPhone or AT&T again, it seems the principle of screwing over customers is not a good one and should be smashed in the face by karma because of it. That's just me though.
yes, Yes, YES!!!!!!!!!! Its about time!
finally something is gonna start happening.
Gee thanks free market!
The bottom line is, this is parity which forces a carrier to be competitive; I.e., to make the cost of service closer to the cost of PROVIDING the service. To charge "minutes of usage" is to impose a chauvinism against a traffic type (voice) that really is irrelevant. If their better QUALITY of voice service when used as a phone isn't better enough to compel consumers to choose their inflated cost for voice over data, then let the chips fall where they will. Telecomm companies have been CRUEL with their billing structure for years. Charging businesses more, because they need it more or profit off the use is wrong. They've had a license to steal based on mass miss conception for years.
Ahhhh, I've been waiting for this to happen.
The 2 year contract that people are stuck with, and the $150 a month that you're stuck paying to use an iPhone on the AT&T network. By signing into that contract you are agreeing to purchase the a subsidized phone for use on AT&T's network, and any requisite fees and services for 2 years. In the iPhone's case, you're required to purchase an unlimited data plan for $30 a month on top of a calling plan and also even more money if you want to send and receive text (which is technically data, even though you are required to have an unlimited data plan).
The point is that if you're an iPhone user who's stuck with an expensive 2 year plan, you want to use and should be entitled to the full capabilities of the phone and the phone network you are paying rather handsomely to use. How come the Blackberry user who has a 2 year contract with a calling plan, unlimited data and text, who pays less a month then an iPhone user, gets to use Google Voice?
How come I can't use my iPhone to watch my Slingbox-ed Tivo over AT&T's network with the App Store's Slingbox App, but my friend can watch MLB games with an MLB app from the App Store on his iPhone over AT&T's network? There's a contract between the MLB, AT&T, and Apple to approve and allow that? But I, as a customer, was required to sign an expensive 2 year contract with required unlimited data to use my iPhone over AT&T's network.
See my point?
But who's to entirely to blame here? Well, they are both at fault for sure, but its Apple and its draconian measures in regards to its iTunes/App Store/iPod eco-structure that are to blame. Eventually Apple's behavior was going to get them into trouble. And no, this has nothing to do with monopolistic behaviors. It has to do with treating your customers like crap for the amount of money they pay for your goods and services.
But AT&T is also going to get some flak here as well, and rightfully so. I pay quite a bit per month for a calling plan, with unlimited text and data. Yet, I still deal with dropped calls, bad reception, static, poor internet speeds, and waving my phone around like a loon to catch a signal like it was 12 years ago. I send a third of my time on phone calls asking "Can you hear me? You there?" For the amount of money I pay per month, this is unacceptable.
What does that have to do with this investigation? The FCC isn't looking at anything but responding by law to a complaint from one of the whiniest companies out there: Google. Odds are the FCC will reject the complain since there is plenty of competition in the market and there is no regulations that remotely put Apple in the wrong.
If you signed the two year contract, you did so based on what that product did, not what it may do in some fanciful future. Apple is under no obligation to grant you every wish you want. Don't believe me? Try taking them to court, just be prepared to be laughed and humiliated.
If you don't like AT&T and or Apple don't use them, there are other companies out there that provide services and goods. And why the hell is Google even supporting their competition?
I imagine Apple's response would focus on three points -
1) We are not talking about an environment to which all people have access mandated by law. We are talking about a product, a device that people are free to buy, or not buy, as they see fit. Apple requires customers to sign a legally-binding contract before they may use the product and that contract contains specific provisions that grant Apple the right, as they see fit, to make available or not make available, applications of any nature. In other words, customers have freely signed a contract giving up any rights they have to challenge or dispute Apple's control of the App Store.
2) There can be no basis for action on an anticompetitive basis, as the iPhone does not hold a majority share of the smartphone market, *let alone* a monopoly share. So according to competition law, it is not possible for Apple to be using their market power to achieve lower competition, because they do not have that kind of market power.
3) The FCC has the power over communications channels, including cellphone frequencies and WiFi channels. The iPhone contains components which interact with these areas of FCC control, and all of those components have been validated and approved by the FCC. The iPhone as a computer, including its applications, CPU, RAM, GPU, et cetera, are NOT part of an environment controlled by the FCC any more than your desktop or laptop is. The FCC does have the power to make regulations concerning the WiFi and cellphone components. It does not have the power to make regulations concerning all other aspects of the device, because they are not communications devices - the "iPhone as computer" can and does act independently of any communications channel and therefore is independent of the FCC's regulatory powers over communications channels.
Apple seems to have taken Evil Empire from Microsoft.... These are the same nut cases that stated last week:
Apple has told the U.S. Copyright Office that modifying the iPhone's operating system could crash a mobile phone network's transmission towers or allow people to avoid paying for phone calls.
"Because jailbreaking makes hacking of the BPP software much easier, jailbreaking affords an avenue for hackers to accomplish a number of undesirable things on the network," the filing said. and
"With access to the BBP via jailbreaking, hackers may be able to change the ECID, which in turn can enable phone calls to be made anonymously (this would be desirable to drug dealers, for example) or charges for the calls to be avoided," Apple said.
aw mann, this is nuts !! if software companies could at least officially sell their products through another pipe than iTunes, nobody would care about these apps being rejected, but here it looks like Apple is not playing fare game.