AT&T, Apple and Google respond to the FCC over Google Voice and the iPhone App Store
By Nilay Patel 
posted August 21st 2009 4:59PM
posted August 21st 2009 4:59PM
Update: And here come Apple and Google's responses as well! We're digesting everything as fast as we can, we're going to do this semi-liveblog style after the break, so grab a frosty and dive in.
Update 2: Okay, so we've read through all three filings and broken them down after the break. Our main takeaway? Apple's being pretty hypocritical by claiming on the one hand that the iPhone is at the forefront of a mobile revolution and then saying iPhone users can't figure out how Google Voice is different than the iPhone's built-in functionality on the other. Either your customers are paradigm-busting visionaries or they're not very smart at all, Apple -- you have to pick one. As for AT&T, well, it just seems like it's worried about its network above all else, and while we think it's ridiculous that it enforces the VoIP and SlingPlayer ban on the iPhone and not, say, Windows Mobile devices, we can see why the carrier would push those contract provisions hard. In the end, we're just hoping the FCC forces everyone involved to be more open and transparent about what they're doing and the deals they're making -- Apple's not necessarily exaggerating when it says these are entirely new problems, and whatever happens next will set a precedent for a long time to come.
Apple: (view the response)
- Says it has not rejected the Google Voice application and "continues to study it."
- Apple's concerned Google Voice alters "the iPhone's distinctive user experience" and "disables Apple's Visual Voicemail."
- "The iPhone user's entire Contacts database is transferred to Google's servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways." [Doesn't Mac OS X do this when it syncs Address Book to Google? What's the issue? -- ed.]
- GV Mobile, GVDialer, and VoiceCentral all have the same issues.
- Says it's "covering new ground and doing things that had never been done before," and that "many of the issues we face are difficult and new."
- Apple did not consult with AT&T about whether to approve Google Voice, and Apple alone makes the final decision on whether or not to approve iPhone apps, although part of the AT&T / Apple contract forbids Apple from approving VoIP apps that run on the cell network.
- "Most of the review process is consumed with quality issues and software bugs."
- SlingPlayer Mobile was "initially rejected because redirecting a TV signal to an iPhone using AT&T's cellular network is prohibited by AT&T's customer Terms of Service." [That's pretty much the opposite of what AT&T promised us. -- ed.]
- There are more than 40 full-time trained iPhone app reviewers, and at least two different reviewers go over each app. There's also an App Store Executive Review Board that meets weekly to determine procedures and sets policy for the review process, and also reviews apps that are escalated to the board because they "raise new or complex issues." [Hello, Phil Schiller!]
- Apple gets 8,500 new apps and updates a week, and it claims only 20 percent are not approved as originally submitted.
- AT&T had no role in Apple's consideration of Google Voice or related applications.
- AT&T has had technical discussions with Apple about the impact of certain types of applications on its network -- it was worried about streaming audio apps like Pandora and video apps like MobiTV's Final Four app. Apple changed how audio streaming worked to enable Pandora, but the video feature was removed from the Final Four app.
- AT&T and Apple also discuss whether certain types of apps are consistent with the Apple / AT&T agreement and AT&T's general wireless terms of service.
- The Apple / AT&T deal prohibits apps that allow VoIP calls on AT&T's network, but AT&T plans to "take a fresh look" at authorizing VoIP apps that run on 3G.
- The iPhone receives the largest subsidy AT&T has ever provided on a wireless handset.
- AT&T prohibits television redirection like SlingPlayer Mobile to "safeguard service quality" because "video apps typically do not make any attempt to minimize the frame rate of the content." [Again, that explains SlingPlayer Mobile's rejection, but it's a big change from what AT&T's told us in the past. -- ed.]
- There have been three cases where AT&T has discovered an app it was worried about and gone to Apple: twice Apple sent AT&T directly to the developers, and the third time Apple dealt with the matter itself. All three cases seem pretty benign.
- AT&T has developed several apps for the iPhone, including a "restroom finder" called Have2P.
- Well, this is interesting: Google's response to "What reasons were given for rejecting Google Voice?" is completely redacted. Considering Apple openly offered its version of the story, you have to wonder what's going on here.
- Google Voice is still available to iPhone users from the web, but Google knows the best experience is via the app.
- Google doesn't "screen or reject" Android Market apps "on the basis of content or functionality." There's an automated testing system in place.
- And that's seriously it -- Google didn't have much to say. Seeing as it's essentially the wronged party in all of this, that makes sense, but you'd think it would push its case a little harder given the singular opportunity here.
anyway Google Voice for me its not a VOIP service,
as it calls both party you are not placing a call using and SIP proxy or any other encoding,
it calls both parties by using the mobile wireless network not the data when talking.
you just use the GV App to lgive order to call the 2 party.
VOIP its like sipphone and Fring has the ability for sip and skype can be called voip but they use there own protocol and codec.
GV is a big threat for Wireless providers as people will send free sms and call both party without any of the 2 initiate a call google will do it.
if you have unlimited incoming and calling US to US you will rock and roll and google will pay for the call termination as while talking you do not use data network only wireless.
i hope the FCC will act fast and block apple and any wireless carrier of blocking applications.
we paid for our iphone the price and they can not neither has the right to limit us from using it.
its our phone and we are allowed to use it.
unless apple will give us the phone for free and put on it a message this phone belong to apple you are allowed to tamper with it or install applications.
apple rejected this app as they know if it was approved lot of Wireless carrier will be upset from apple and they do not want that.
i am so pissed of apple action, it looks like i am paying my phone full price for no agreement and they want to tell me how to use and what to put on it.
By your description you have clearly demonstrated why the FCC will probably side against Google on this. The FCC has the duty to look at what is going on and why an application would be allowed or not allowed. If you the customer are paying for 300 minute a month out-calling plan for out of network numbers but have unlimited in-network calling and the Google application makes all your outgoing calls appear as incoming / in-network calls and there by eliminating all charges I can not see the FCC taking anyone's side but AT&T on that one.
I've never used the application myself but that is what your description implies. If so its a way to scam AT&T or any other carrier out of paying for the service you use. And I firmly believe that saying well I do pay for a monthly plan so I am in the right in a BS answer. I see it as people that sign up for cable service and unlimited internet from time-warner or someone similar and then try to run a bunch of servers off the connection and use up and incredible amount of bandwidth (which they are tying up at the expense of their neighbors quality of service) and then rant about how they pay for unlimited internet as an excuse. When they know perfectly well they are doing something wrong.
Well, I can understand there being privacy concerns if my Contacts are going to copies over onto Google's servers unless it is explicitly stated that this will happen and there is a "Terms & Conditions" statement that I have to approve before I can use the application. Beyond that the reasons given do indeed sound distinctly fishy given that, as usual, Apple's position is inconsistently applied across applications that have already been approved.
Still, this has at least provided an interesting view into the Apple/AT&T relationship (not that I actually care since I don't live in the US), what is involved in the App Store approvals process, and that Google is apparently more secretive than Apple. We now wait to see what the FCC's reaction to all this is.
These are huge companies. Point the finger at who will lose the most revenue. Answer: AT&T. They were not under oath to the FCC. So all three can be complete bull. But AT&T had the most to lose. Plain and simple. Follow the money: find the guilt. AT&T pays the most subsidy to Apple than any other phone, and unlike other phones: only they carry it. Be pissed at Apple for being a push-over. But AT&T has already been broken up in the past. If you believe their (non-oath) answer to the FCC then you are just as bad as a fanboy: you're a troll. Apple's no saint, they want to protect their current subsidies so they will, sadly, blindly bow to the contract in place. But AT&T had the most to loose. Apple and Google collaborate on tons of things. AT&T does not, and wants, needs, you using their SMS and other over priced services. Also, read your AT&T contract. Unlimited is not unlimited. Of they see you over using your data or rollover minutes, they will drop you. This has the stink of an egotistical telecom all over it. If you hate Apple this only gives you ammunition. I don't believe comments from users called "WindowsFTW" are objective. AT&T=100% of the blame, and since you pay them way more than you should, they will lie, as they have on many issues, all the way to the bank. I could care less about the motives of the other two parties involved. I know AT&T, and "don't do evil" is the opposite of their gameplan. "Protect our own asses" is how they have, and will continue to operate. Until Apple's contract expires, they will sadly bow down to their mamabell overlord. There isn't an app for that because AT&T said their can't be. Like they have knowingly done in the past. Apple uses the majority of AT&T's data bandwidth by a huge margin and they don't/can't have another US carrier at the moment: so what ATT wants ATT gets and they can smile and lie to your, and the FCC's face. They will continue to so as long as we let them. They control how you use your phone, and Apple uses the largest chunk of their network. Don't kid yourself thinking they don't have a say in how that (already overcrowded) network is used. Follow the money, find the guilty. If you think Apple is the culprit: then you would have to believe Apple disabled their own designed tethering and MMS features as well. As noted, Phil Scheller had already, and Apple works on apps together will Google. YouTube and Maps launched on the phone at the beginning. Google search with voice used APIs unavalible to other developers when it launched. AT&T is getting so much negative press outside of GV, do you think they would just openly say that this too was their doing? They would love nothing more than Apple catching the heat on this one; and just as extreme fanboys are, hardcore Apple haters, who actually pay money to buy and host domains (like above) to bash them, are blindly fighting AT&T's battle for them: yet the people who own iPhones are the sheep? You wallow in you own hypocracy. They hatred you project starts with yourself. I tried to make this objective, but I know a lot of you will just stay closeminded. I doubt WindowsFTW will see things any other way than his own distorted reality. I could care less. I'm just pointing out whose behind this bases on the way things work in the world today.
Perhaps it was Google's involvement with Apple that had something to do with it. As we all know, Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google was on the board of directors for Apple before this whole FCC thing. Initial impressions of this situation will lead to people thinking that it was ATT (voip/bandwith concerns) or Apple (duplication of functionality) that prevented the Google Voice app. to be approved, but what I think is that Google wants its GV app. to be exclusively available on Android phones, with all other phones having access to its mobile web portal.
If one thinks about it, something like a GV app. could be a major selling point of Android phones. I suppose what I'm getting at is that there might have been some collusion with Apple during Schmidt's stay @Apple --agreeing not to release a GV app.
Valid point. I had thought about him and his departure, but as with other Google iPhone apps, I think Google wanted it and Apple would have been willing to have it: even maybe, like past apps, helped them with it or at least helped polish it.
I ranted too long about the fact that the FCC just inquired about this, and in no way were the companies under any kind of oath. With the contracts in place how they are, it all seems to protect AT&T (why were the others pulled) and since the App Store is Apple's, AT&T can just wash their hands of it: claiming no involvment—even though past precident indicates they do involve themselves when they see their business model, including their network, threated in anyway. Skype is WiFi only. Other free txt apps exsist from small independant developers. But Google & Apple are huge compared to AT&T, and they could have foreseen large amounts of people drop expensive TXT plans to go with the Google name and brand. Using their network, yet losing revenue they had in place before. Who wouldn't want to save $30 a month (unlimited family text plan) to use a free Apple sanctioned Google app with your own number and push notification. It would've completely replaced their expensive option with an equal quality free one—still using the same data plan.
Sorry for my typing and spelling; it's late and I'm groggy. =p
Also the fact this was becoming another AAPL v. MSFT flame war was regrettable. It's 2009—just sayin'.
Let Apple and AT&T reject Google Voice and similar apps. This will only open the door further for Android and other open source smartphone OS's and their applications.
I, for one, a Google Voice user would tell both AT&T and Apple for their practices, past and present -- "POUND SAND"! Thank goodness I'm a Verizon customer.
As I find it very funny to read most of these comments about who did what and why. I still go back to Apple. I am an Apple fanboy who use to love everything about Microsoft, however I have to point the obvious. Apple basically said it was rejected deal with it and until we see the threat of competition gone then we will come back to it. (Common sense to me if I'm running a business). AT&T basically says we didn't do anything it was all Apples fault which they did not lie but that tells me how they think! They didn't because that type of response would not go well if I was the person making money for your shitty ass company! Google says they are the ones left out, well Google yeah u were but you have to understand that GV was and is a direct threat to Apple. Google you have an Android phone use it for your own shit. Now why would Apple still reject it well think about it this way: What wireless company you know is going to let someone put that as an app on the phone itself and be ok with it? Verizon sure as hell wouldn't be ok with it bcz its losing money from them, AT&T knows damn well they are not about to lose that money by doing that. Basically if you have it as a web app then the cell networks have nothing to bitch about bcz they can not control the web but they damn sure can control what phone is allowed on there company! So is anyone at fault, not really it's all about dollars and sense. Another note iPhone is king dingling the wireless networks are short stacks and Google is the whining ass virgin who wants there cherry popped. Get over yourself make a better Android phone and have it work flawlessly on your own shit. AT&T spend some damn money! Apple loosen up a bit everything still going to be ok. Now where the hell is my Techmo Bowl on my JAILBROKEN IPHONE!
I kinda hovered over...
Dear Ms. Milkman
for a while.
This is one exemplary reason among many that I never buy products from Apple: The draconian walled garden approach. Oh, just wait for creative destruction to collect its garbage and stomp Apple to the curb with the old when the time comes. Bewildered will be the masses when they question why they ever supported this company. Oh, how the march of progress scares the entrenched and the lap dogs among us.
Also the argument about providing a user experience is laughable: It has as much staying power as the arguments made by authoritarian leaders that they are just paternalistically working toward the benefit of their people. That fails the smell test; just ask the fine folks in Russia, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, & Co.
- m.t.p.
"while we think it's ridiculous that it enforces the VoIP and SlingPlayer ban on the iPhone and not, say, Windows Mobile devices"
Not that I'm defending AT&T, just pointing something out. The reality is, streaming video over 3G goes against AT&T's terms of use. The thing about the iPhone, vs other smartphones, is that Apple owns the infrastructure that delivers the software to the device. That's not the case with BlackBerry software, or Windows Mobile, etc. And so the Apple/iPhone model give Apple and/or AT&T enormous power to force users to abide by the terms of service by crippling software that enable users to break the terms of service. AT&T has no control over software makers. But Apple has control over the delivery and approval system of that software. And so AT&T--through it's partnership with apple--is able to govern, or at least have a say in what software we are "allowed" to use. In short, AT&T isn't able to bully software makers. But Apple is (because of the delivery/approval system) and so AT&T is able to, by extension. This is why full 3G functionality still exists in software for other smartphone platforms. I mean....what can AT&T do about it? The purchase is between the end user, and the software maker. No middle man. AT&T can't do anything about that (thank God!) With the iPhone however, Apple is the middle man. The gate keeper. And AT&T can needle Apple to reject apps because the only way apps can get on the iPhone is through the app store....which is Apple's kingdom. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is fair! I abandoned my iPhone and went back to BlackBerry because I think this is bullshit. Nowhere else can a hardware maker have this much say over what software the end user installs on their device. It's unthinkable. And I'll tell you this, I'm about ready to ditch AT&T specifically over this.
Again, just wanted to point out that little detail. Trust me, if AT&T could cripple SlingPlayer Mobile for BlackBerry they absolutely would. But as there is no middle man, they can't. Eat that, AT&T!
You people have your answers now let this die already.
So GV app allowed text messaging through Google, bypassing ATT and ATT's fee/ per text or text addon plan?
Is that correct?
It's all b.s. man here's there reasoning for denying spoofapp, from spoofapp.com:
After 192 days Apple has finally rejected SpoofApp.
"We've reviewed SpoofApp and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store at this time because it allows users to anonymously make calls and/or wrongly identifies the caller ID of the phone (known as Caller ID spoofing). We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store." - iPhone Developer Program
Now apple is turning around and saying some other b.s. about the functionality of the phone when it comes to google voice?? give me a break.
so what about blackberry maps why did AT&T block that
Its so childish as to what AT&T and Apple are doing. They can so easily reject GV Mobile compared to that other guy who made bundles of money from 2000 blindly approved USELESS apps. Hopefully this case will come to a positive conclusion, accessing google voice from safari on my iphone is such a drag.
___......_
__,,-~’’’¯¯ /| / /``-.,
//¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯// |¯/~~ `~. FFFFFFFFFF
,-` || |/ || `-,
_.-` // ||/ / =¯=-,. \\\ FFFFFFFFFF
¯¯¯///¯¯==.,\=. ||\///’ ,.-` , `-, `-,\
|| ,.-` `
Not sure what is so complicated to understand.
1. You install something that changes the functionality of the phone, Apple can no longer support it. It changes the structure and it's hard to say what complications can arise from that.
2. AT&T, no matter if you like them or not, needs to have an income source. You get free VOIP instead of their network, they lose revenue and eventually are burdened with a loss of income. In the end, this is not what anyone can afford because they would get hit hard financially.
Everyone else who's complaining about getting something for nothing, come on, if you were selling products and people were stealing from you, I'm pretty sure you'd probably take people to court.
It doesn't matter the size of the company, no business can withstand a constant loss of income. I know, I own 2 businesses. I am not siding with anyone, except the business structure that has been implemented. I understand and I accept it.
Yea but the service of at&t sucks around here.
I'm an avid iPhone user... I owned an original Mac in Jan 1984
I'm pissed about AT&T not allowing MMS with 3.0 like Europe (late summer, Why are we still waiting?).
I'm pissed AT&T wants to charge for additionally for tethering. At that point I might as well get a separate 3G USB subscription and not lose iPhone functionality while on-line with a notebook...
But the real issue her is control and future sales. Apple does not want your primary phone number to be a google issued number. Apple doesn't want you to prefer using Google voice voicemail. Apple doesn't want your contacts to be on a Google server rather than syncing through iTunes or resident on in an apple controlled iPhone app (contacts).
If full blown Google Voice features and future enhancements are allowed; how does apple insure it retains future market share?
Why are Apple and Palm fighting out whether a Pre can sync to iTunes.
I love my iPhone just as much as anyone else. Today, in my opinion, its the best integrated device on the market. Tomorrow it might not be and I will switch.
Enjoy what a company produces don't make their Chairperson a saint and love them unconditionally....
"Apple's being pretty hypocritical by claiming on the one hand that the iPhone is at the forefront of a mobile revolution and then saying iPhone users can't figure out how Google Voice is different than the iPhone's built-in functionality on the other. Either your customers are paradigm-busting visionaries or they're not very smart at all, Apple -- you have to pick one."
Apple only claimed that the iPhone "was at the forefront of a mobile revolution", not that the iPhone users were. Note the difference. There is no rule or causation that says, a revolutionary device *must* have revolutionary users.
Therefore, there is no hypocrisy. It solves itself if you say, "the iPhone is a revolutionary device, and the users are just ordinary users (not paradigm-busting revolutionaries)". There is nothing inconsistent within that.
If you weren't so primed to criticise Apple, if you had approached these statements with an open mind (instead of a mind already 100% convinced of Apple's "guilt") then you would have instantly recognised a claim of "hypocrisy" as being the absolute rubbish that it is.
Its amazing that apple states that they rejected the Google Voice App because it replaced existing functionality. Well Apple, why did you approve RingCentral’s App? It has its own dialer and method for retriveing VM as well. Why is that app okay and not Google’s?
Who cares why they did it?
It's no secret Google is after world domination just like Apple.
Anything Apple can do as a "screw you" to Google will be done.
It's just business.
If you don't like it, buy a G-Phone and enjoy service that's even more crappy than AT&T.
Having been involved in negotiating and writing contracts for joint ventures between wireless carriers and phone manufacturers I can tell you one thing for certain. The contracts are longer than hell and have HUGE lists of things one party can and can't do. I'm willing to bet that the initial contract between Apple and AT&T includes specific requirements to protect each others bottom line throughout... The only way to know for certain is for someone to get a hold of the actual agreement. I'm also willing to bet that AT&T didn't contact Apple about the Google Voice, but not because they are such good people but because their agreement probably already spelled out that fact that a program like Google Voice wouldn't be pushed by Apple.