Apple are liars. The truth about Apple, Google, AT&T and the FCC

[Casey]

Some of you may have been aware of the criticism recently of Apple for their hardcore "policing" of their App Store - which came to a head when they rejected Google's "Google Voice" application. This led to justified Apple bashing and a large exodus of users from the iPhone, including people that had previously been diehard iPhone fanboys, such as Michael Arrington of TechCrunch. To read his story, click here.

Anyway, in the last few days, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) demanded statements from Apple and AT&T to explain exactly why they had done this.

At first, Apple fanboys defended their beloved company by intimating that the rejection of the Google Voice app was somehow AT&T's decision. But in their statement, AT&T said it was nothing to do with them.

Apple's statement is the most interesting part though. Why? Because it's full of lies. It's very clearly designed not to show weakness - when the truth is that Apple are very scared of Google right now, and rightfully so. Google's Android platform is taking their mobile userbase, and the upcoming Chrome OS will take a large chunk out of their home computer/laptop userbase as well.

Now, to know what's really going on here, have a read of this article (source)

The Truth: What’s Really Going On With Apple, Google, AT&T And The FCC

Apple has responded to the FCC’s request for information around its rejection of various Google and third party iPhone applications for the iPhone.

In short, Apple denies that they rejected the Google Voice application, but they go into great detail about how the Google Voice application hurts “the iPhone’s distinctive user experience.” All of those statements are either untrue, or misleading, or both.

The first part of Apple’s argument, that they never rejected the application, is “a total lie,” according to many sources with knowledge of the Google Voice application process.

The second part of Apple’s argument, that the Google Voice application hurts the iPhone’s distinctive user experience, is seriously misleading. I know this because I’ve become intimately familiar with the Google Voice service and applications over the last few months. I haven’t used the Google Voice app for the iPhone specifically, because it never launched. But I have been briefed by the Google team on two separate occasions on how the app would work over the last couple of months. Also, I’ve demo’d the Blackberry version of the app, and now use the Android version of the app.

Here’s the key language from Apple’s letter, with my comments:

Apple: “Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it.”

Reality: One third party Google Voice app developer disclosed to us in July that Apple SVP Phil Schiller told them that Google’s own app would be or already was rejected. Google also confirmed this to us later. There is overwhelming evidence that Apple did in fact reject the application.

Apple: “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. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone.”

Reality: This strongly suggests that the Google Voice app replaces much of the core Apple iPhone OS function. This certainly isn’t accurate, and we believe the statement is misleading. More details below, but in general the iPhone app is a very light touch and doesn’t interfere with any native iPhone apps at all.

Apple: “For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail.”

Reality: Not true and misleading. The Google Voice application has its own voicemail function, which also transcribes messages. But it only works for incoming Google Voice calls, not calls to the iPhone. The Google Voice app in no way “replaces” Apple’s voicemail function.

Apple: “Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature.”

Reality: Not true and misleading. The Google Voice app doesn’t replace or in any way interfere wtih the iPhone’s text messaging feature. If someone sends a text message to your Google Voice number, the Google Voice app shows it. If it is sent directly to the iPhone phone number, nothing is different.

Apple: “In addition, 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. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.”

Reality: Complete fabrication, way beyond misleading. The Google Voice app can access the iPhone’s contacts database, like thousands of other iPhone apps. But the Google Voice app never syncs the contacts database to their own servers. There is no option for users to do this. However, Apple offers the ability to sync iPhone contacts with Google via iTunes. So not only is Apple’s statement untrue, but they also provide this exact feature themselves via their own service.

So how did Google answer the same question in their own separate letter to the FCC, also made publicly available today? We don’t know, because Google requested that the answer be redacted. But my guess is that the answer, which the FCC has and can compare to Apple’s response, tells a significantly different (approximately the exact opposite) story:

Our sources at Google tell us in no uncertain terms that Apple rejected the application. And we have an independent third party app developer who tells us that an Apple Exec also told them back in July that the Google Voice Application was rejected.


In other words, there is strong evidence that Apple is, well, lying.

Which also is the easiest way to explain Apple’s long rambling letter to the FCC. Why go into so much detail about the problems with the Google Voice application, and then say that it was never rejected? If the app does actually replace all of those core apple phone, contact and SMS features, why not reject it out of hand? I don’t believe anyone would say Apple made the wrong decision if that laundry list of nonsense had any truth to it (we have an answer to that, below).

Multiple sources at Google tell us that in informal discussions with Apple over the last few months Apple expressed dismay at the number of core iPhone apps that are powered by Google. Search, maps, YouTube, and other key popular apps are powered by Google. Other than the browser, Apple has little else to call its own other than the core phone, contacts and calendar features. The Google Voice App takes things one step further, by giving users an incentive to abandon their iPhone phone number and use their Google Voice phone number instead (transcription of voicemails is reason enough alone). Apple was afraid, say our sources, that Google was gaining too much power on the iPhone, and that’s why they rejected the application.

Apple seemed to be fine telling Google and others that the real reason they wouldn’t accept the Google Voice app on the iPhone was a fear of being turned into little more than a hardware manufacturer over time as users spent more and more time on Google Voice and less time on the competing native iPhone apps. Or simply letting people believe that AT&T was behind the rejection. Until the FCC got involved, that is. Then Apple denied the rejections and directed the FCCs attention to misleading or simply untrue factual statements about the App.

Of course, now both Google and AT&T are required to tell their side of the story to the FCC, too. And those stories aren’t adding up.

What Happens Next?

Here’s what we believe Apple is preparing to do next. Their statement that they haven’t rejected the app, along with the long laundry list of complaints (none of which are true) tells us that they’re backtracking, and fast.

Sometime soon, we guess, Apple will simply accept the Google Voice application. They have to - any serious investigation into the app by the FCC will show that the complaints around the app are unfounded and that it does none of the things Apple accuses it of doing. So Apple will save face by simply asking Google to ensure that the App doesn’t take over native phone, sms and other functions, and doesn’t sync the contacts to Google’s servers. Google will comply (they already have), and Apple will graciously accept the application.

But we’ll all know exactly where Apple stands - jealously guarding control of their users and trying to block Google and other third party developers at every turn from getting their superior applications in front those users.

This isn’t about protecting users, it’s about controlling them. And that’s not what Apple should be about. Put the users first, Steve, and don’t lie to us. We’re not that dumb.

Apple = Google's bitch.

 

[S. Fourteen]

And nobody really cares expect for people that want to show how their phone is better than somebody else's.

The fact is Casey, iPhones have the highest satisfaction rating in the market, and you can go on and on about how they are evil and how you are mini rage against the machine and how fanboys are blind but you can't take away their joy of haivng a great device.

iPhone users > you

 

[Casey]

And nobody really cares expect for people that want to show how their phone is better than somebody else's.

The fact is Casey, iPhones have the highest satisfaction rating in the market, and you can go on and on about how they are evil and how you are mini rage against the machine and how fanboys are blind but you can't take away their joy of haivng a great device.

iPhone users > you

LOL, nobody cares? If nobody cared, this would not be an issue in the first place.

Satisfaction rating? People are dumb and don't know any better, now THAT is a fact. If all the music you ever heard was Vanilla Ice, you'd be satisfied too because you don't know any better. At one point, Mr. Ice sold 20 million records too and was the biggest selling rapper in the market. I bet you probably bought his album and sang along to "Ice Ice Baby" all day, right? I bet that gave you a lot of joy as well. Does that make it cool? Does that make it OK? No, because some of us care about having the BEST EXPERIENCE from the product.

It's why you buy Grey Goose and not lame-cheap-no-name Russian vodka that probably sells a lot more to homeless bums who enjoy it and think it's the best shit out there. It's why you listen to good underground hip-hop music that doesn't get played on the radio even though Soulja Boy sells more records and has a higher "satisfaction rating". It's why you go out and eat gourmet food at a nice restaurant instead of going to McDonalds. Sure, you can find more people in the world that love McDonalds than love good food.
And it's why you use an Android device instead of an iPhone.

Sorry to disturb your blind fanboy satisfaction though. Please continue to use your crappy iPhone, listen to Vanilla Ice and eat at McDonalds. You're too stubborn and set in your ways to know a better product when you see one despite reams and reams of evidence. That's OK. People like you don't make a difference in the world.

iPhone = phone equivalent of McDonalds and Vanilla Ice.

P.S - It speaks volumes that you weren't legitimately able to defend Apple here and instead resort to the "nobody cares" crap. I expected better from you......or did I?

 

[S. Fourteen]

Companies protecting their interests is nothing extraordinary.

 

[Casey]

Companies protecting their interests is nothing extraordinary.

Of course. It happens in business on a daily basis. But when it happens, the right thing to do is acknowledge it.

Begin to work on superior products that can give you a chance to level the playing field in the future.

Don't lie to your userbase like they are stupid. As the article said:

This isn’t about protecting users, it’s about controlling them. And that’s not what Apple should be about. Put the users first, Steve, and don’t lie to us. We’re not that dumb.

The truth in this instance has been blindingly obvious from day one. Apple are scared of Google, even more so now that Eric Schmidt is no longer on Apple's board of directors.

Google are taking their market share in multiple areas. That's a fact. Apple are free to protect their interests - of course! But to try and save face with lies and bullshit is not only laughable from an outside perspective - it's insulting to their own users.

Let's think about a scenario here involving you, S.Fourteen. Let's say, you weren't an Apple fanboy. You don't begrudgingly watch videos on YouTube wishing Apple had their own video service. You don't use Google Search with a feeling in your heart that Apple could do better if they tried. You have no real loyalty or affection for Apple, but you use an iPhone, because, well, it looks cool and has nice marketing. You've been sucked in by the nice aesthetic and solid marketing campaign. And therefore, when something as cool as Google Voice comes along and you get an invite, you jump at the chance to check it out, and realize that it is something special.

Then the news comes out - Apple have rejected it from their App store, thus stopping you from doing what you want to do, like you are a child. You're not sure why, so you read up on it. You, having used the Google Voice web portal, realize that what Apple is saying is wrong. You know Apple are protecting their interests because Google is becoming a dominant Behemoth for applications and web services and Apple is jealous of the amount of control they have. Then this bunch of bullshit and lies in Apple's statement comes out. You would feel very insulted, because Apple are basically intimating that you are an idiot, and that they know what's best for you. In a nutshell that's what's happened here. And yeah, most of the iPhone userbase probably don't know and don't care. But it's the ones who do know and do care that are the important, relevant, progressive people - the people that will go on to change the world and make a difference. And with this situtation, Apple has basically given those people the middle finger.

 

[S. Fourteen]

It's just pretty talk, casey. A great material for a counter-culture band to write songs about.

 

[Flipmo]

I've heard more complaints about people's Iphones than any other phone. They just love it cause of the flimsy apps like telling you when to pee during a movie, after their contract finishes they're either gonna switch to a Google Android phone, or a Blackberry. My old school Sony Ericsson that I've dropped from my balcony in a awesomely drunken manner drops less calls than the Iphone. lol

While this is what is happening around me, I can't talk for those that don't have any issues.

 

[S. Fourteen]

And I hear nothing but good things about iPhones.

*sips Lemonade*

 

[Duke]

This is the lamest discussion EVER.

Getting gang-raped by chimpanzees is higher on my priority list than showing any interest in this ridiculous nerd-fued.

 

[Casey]

I've heard more complaints about people's Iphones than any other phone. They just love it cause of the flimsy apps like telling you when to pee during a movie, after their contract finishes they're either gonna switch to a Google Android phone, or a Blackberry. My old school Sony Ericsson that I've dropped from my balcony in a awesomely drunken manner drops less calls than the Iphone. lol

While this is what is happening around me, I can't talk for those that don't have any issues.

Outside of my own personal feelings about Apple - this is also true.

Salty you have yet to make an intelligent response to a single point in this whole thread. Your dry one-liners and counter-culture intimations are particularly dull. But again, that's OK. I understand your need to attempt to defend Apple here, but you (just like Apple) need to simply accept the fact that the battle has already been won.

 

[Casey]

This is the lamest discussion EVER.

Getting gang-raped by chimpanzees is higher on my priority list than showing any interest in this ridiculous nerd-fued.

And yet you still felt the need to post about it. That's possibly the lamest thing of all.

*reads thread about something he doesn't care about*
*posts about how he doesn't care about it*

Really, Duke?

 

[Sebastian]

Well, Duke might not care about the topic but maybe he knew you and Salty would start an argument and he was interested in the outcome.

At least thats the reason why i entered this thread.

 

[Duke]

Sebas hits the nail on the head. Neutral discussions need not be unentertaining for the objective spectator.

Also, I was merely stating my disapproval on the discussion subject. If you feel vandalized in your nerd-gadget-freak honour, then so much the better

 

[masta247]

People are dumb and don't know any better

Yeah that's a valid point - most people still use internet explorer for the net and windows media player for well.. playing media. Even though they could do much, much better, oftenly easier and cheaper.

It's the same mechanism that makes people buy Iphones, Ipods, Sony Vaio laptops, various Microsoft/paid software instead of open source and freeware and I also think it has something to do with people listening to shitty music.

 

[Flipmo]

Fuck Sony Vaio laptops. Toshibas rape em.

 

[_carmi]

Yeah that's a valid point - most people still use internet explorer for the net and windows media player for well.. playing media. Even though they could do much, much better, oftenly easier and cheaper.

It's the same mechanism that makes people buy Iphones, Ipods, Sony Vaio laptops, various Microsoft/paid software instead of open source and freeware and I also think it has something to do with people listening to shitty music.

I still use Windows Media Player... Why shouldn't I? (Btw that's the only thing I use/have from your list hehe)

 

[Caesar]

and the upcoming Chrome OS will take a large chunk out of their home computer/laptop userbase as well.

If you think that the Google Chrome OS, a OS purely designed to power net applications for mini netbooks, will even dent the Mac OS's market share, you are seriously deluded.

Google Chrome OS = A web and email browser.

Mac OS X = The most stable and powerful OS on the market today. Can run a whole range of apps.

You think things like Final Cut Studio will run on a webbased OS? I think not.

Dont accuse someone of lying and then get caught out lying yourself

 

[Caesar]

The iPhone is a fun toy for people that just want a phone with some fun apps, games and gimmicks adjusted. No serious phone user would use it, but those are two different markets.

As for what Apple did, good on them. This is like people being shocked that McDonalds wouldnt allowed Burger King to sell their burgers inside a McDonalds store. I mean come on.

 

[Casey]

If you think that the Google Chrome OS, a OS purely designed to power net applications for mini netbooks, will even dent the Mac OS's market share, you are seriously deluded.

Google Chrome OS = A web and email browser.

Mac OS X = The most stable and powerful OS on the market today. Can run a whole range of apps.

You think things like Final Cut Studio will run on a webbased OS? I think not.

Dont accuse someone of lying and then get caught out lying yourself

Um, if you think Google's sole intention with Chrome OS is for it to be a OS for netbooks and to only run web apps, YOU my friend are the one that is deluded. When has Google EVER done anything by halves?

Of course they're not going to show their hand as to what their true intentions are with the Chrome OS because development isn't far enough along yet, but anyone familiar with Google's history can see exactly what their long term goal is.

Android = starts out with phones and manufacturers are already making netbook's running Android, as well as a whole host of other devices. Same thing with Chrome. It'll start out on netbooks, sure, but once they work out the launch bugs and get to version 2.0, then 3.0 and so on, for the software, it'll be a full on OS and WILL take Mac OSX market share, slowly but surely.

The fact that you think Chrome OS is "just a web and email browser" means you aren't thinking about this properly. Two years ago we could have been having this exact same conversation about Android and you would have said "it's just a phone OS", but it has already proven to be so much more.

Of course Final Cut Pro could run on a future version of Chrome. It could run on any operating system that supports the correct build environments and has the right hardware behind it.

So don't accuse ME of lying when you don't know the facts. I would put money on it that time will prove me to be correct - as I said, Google do not do things by halves.

As for your McDonalds/Burger King theory - explain how Google Voice is any different to other Google products that run on the iPhone, such as Gmail and YouTube. Oh wait - Apple don't have a popular email service and they don't have a popular video sharing service. So it's OK to utilize Google for those things. But when Google creates a great product that happens to potentially draw users away from an Apple service on their own device, it's a problem. GTFO with that shit, it's hypocritical and your analogy was weak, at best.

 

[Caesar]

Um, if you think Google's sole intention with Chrome OS is for it to be a OS for netbooks and to only run web apps, YOU my friend are the one that is deluded. When has Google EVER done anything by halves?

Of course they're not going to show their hand as to what their true intentions are with the Chrome OS because development isn't far enough along yet, but anyone familiar with Google's history can see exactly what their long term goal is.

Total hearsay. You are putting words in the mouths of your Google Gods.

The fact is they have said it as an OS purely for netbooks to run web apps. End of story. Google cant compete with Mac/Windows and Unix and their are smartly not trying to.

Android = starts out with phones and manufacturers are already making netbook's running Android, as well as a whole host of other devices. Same thing with Chrome. It'll start out on netbooks, sure, but once they work out the launch bugs and get to version 2.0, then 3.0 and so on, for the software, it'll be a full on OS and WILL take Mac OSX market share, slowly but surely.

No way. Most of Mac OSXs market share comes from film, graphics and film editors.

Google OS will not run Final Cut Studio, nor will it ever run Logic or Pro Tools. I doubt it will ever even run Photoshop. Google OS wont have any bigger of a market share than Ubantu for example. It wont compete with the mainstream Microsoft Windows users, and it wont compete with the hardcore graphics, motion and music editors. So all it has left is the uber cool geek market like Unix, and Unix already has that cornered.

The fact that you think Chrome OS is "just a web and email browser" means you aren't thinking about this properly.

No, it means that Im paying attention to what they are saying and you're running around with deluded fantasies that arent grounded in anything they've ever said or market analysis or logic for that matter.

Two years ago we could have been having this exact same conversation about Android and you would have said "it's just a phone OS", but it has already proven to be so much more.

Right, yet no one really cares. I rarely see an Anroid phone in the wild, Ive never seen anything else running it. So who cares, and no one will, because it wont put a dent in those core markets Ive stated above.

You may have a wet dream over running some hacked version of Cubase on it, but no studio in the world will run it, no graphics or film house will run it, no average commercial user (the bread and butter) will run it, and most geeks will stick to Unix.

Of course Final Cut Pro could run on a future version of Chrome. It could run on any operating system that supports the correct build environments and has the right hardware behind it.

Not legally, not without being hacked to shit. Apple doesnt allow Google Voice on it's iPhone do you think Apple will allow one of their core applications to run on Google OS? Riiiiight.

So don't accuse ME of lying when you don't know the facts. I would put money on it that time will prove me to be correct - as I said, Google do not do things by halves.

Riiiiiight.

As for your McDonalds/Burger King theory - explain how Google Voice is any different to other Google products that run on the iPhone, such as Gmail and YouTube. Oh wait - Apple don't have a popular email service and they don't have a popular video sharing service. So it's OK to utilize Google for those things. But when Google creates a great product that happens to potentially draw users away from an Apple service on their own device, it's a problem. GTFO with that shit, it's hypocritical and your analogy was weak, at best.

Its up to Apple to allow whatever they want to allow into their app store for whatever reason they want to disallow or allow it. It is their store.

If Apple really isnt a force to be reckoned with like you think, why do you even care if they rejected Googles app?