backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by HrilL.. on Aug 6 at 9:51 PM

AT&T has no qualms about blaming partner Apple for app rejections

Under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T has passed the blame for the Google Voice application rejection on to partner Apple.  According to AT&T's spokesperson, "AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store. We have received the letter and will, of course, respond to it."

The FCC has demanded that Apple and AT&T explain the process by which applications are rejected.  In particular its asking what contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T influence app store rejections. 

The government also asked, "Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)? If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play? What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or any non-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?"

The insinuation by AT&T, though, that it plays no part in app store policing and that regulation is solely the work of Apple is flat out false, though.  AT&T previously ordered Apple to force Slingbox to operate over WiFi only.  AT&T had stated:
Slingbox, which would use large amounts of wireless network capacity, could create congestion and potentially prevent other customers from using the network. The application does not run on our 3G wireless network. Applications like this, which redirect a TV signal to a personal computer, are specifically prohibited under our terms of service. We consider smartphones like the iPhone to be personal computers in that they have the same hardware and software attributes as PCs.
Steve Jobs also noted during a Q&A session that AT&T is actively policing voice-over-IP apps.  He stated that AT&T is the reason why apps like Skype are WiFi only.  In the end it appears that despite its claims of innocence, AT&T may play more of a role in iPhone app policing than it admits.

The finger pointing by AT&T does illustrate increasing tension between the two companies.  Apple took a number of apparent snipes at AT&T during its Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) keynote address, where it introduced the new iPhone 3G S.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ruh Roh.
By Smilin on 8/4/2009 11:10:33 AM , Rating: 5
Lucky the FCC is watching otherwise Steve Jobs would send some Foxconn brutes over to throw AT&T CEO Stephenson out a window.




RE: Ruh Roh.
By Mr772 on 8/4/2009 11:26:39 AM , Rating: 1
I love seeing the FCC posturing it's ability to b*tch sl*p apple for their consumer hating ways. It seems they would have been a better fit with Verizon since they hate on their customers too with unfriendly consumer practices.


RE: Ruh Roh.
By KWRussell on 8/4/2009 12:13:39 PM , Rating: 1
So where was Apple supposed to go with the iPhone? In case you haven't noticed, every mobile phone service sucks in one way or another. Apple had to answer the same question the rest of us do: What company has the most tolerable BS?


RE: Ruh Roh.
By monomer on 8/4/2009 12:25:14 PM , Rating: 3
Apple doesn't care about the customer BS. The only factor that determined which carrier got the iPhone was money.


RE: Ruh Roh.
By gstrickler on 8/4/2009 2:54:34 PM , Rating: 1
Actually the major factor that influenced which carrier got the iPhone was the technology, specifically GSM. In the US, that means AT&T or T-Mobile (a division of Deutsche Telekom).

GSM is the standard in most countries, which makes it the natural choice for a first product. Verizon and Sprint use CDMA, which has higher licensing costs, fewer customers, and very limited support outside the US and Asia. And if you think Apple is bad, just try dealing with Qualcomm.


RE: Ruh Roh.
By teldar on 8/4/2009 3:48:46 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, I believe that the iPhone was pitched to Verizon, but Verizon said "We need to control the software." To this, Apple said "Bite me. We'll take it to AT&T. Bitches." And so the iPhone became GSM instead of CDMA.


RE: Ruh Roh.
By Totally on 8/4/2009 1:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
"Apple had to answer the same question the rest of us do: What company has the most tolerable BS?"

lol Wat? Did you miss the exploding ipod cover-up article before this one? Apple and BS Naww..oil and water those two


RE: Ruh Roh.
By quiksilvr on 8/4/2009 2:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
IMO, if you are going to be using 3G internet alot, go with Sprint. If you aren't, go with T-Mobile. Sprint has the cheapest 3G data plan and T-Mobile has the most configurations to meet peoples texting and calling needs.


RE: Ruh Roh.
By HaB1971 on 8/4/2009 1:55:48 PM , Rating: 3
AT&T is looking to hire Shaggy to perform (the damn awful) "It wasn't me" for the FCC.

(Yo', man) Yo'
(Open up, man) What do you want, man?
(The FCC just caught me) You let them catch you?
(I don't know how I let this happen) With who?
(With Steve Jobs, you know) Man
(I don't know what to do) Say it wasn't you


RE: Ruh Roh.
By smegz on 8/6/2009 2:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm...if I were in Apples shoes, I would use this tacit denial to my advantage. First, approve Sling Player, Skype and Google Voice for use over 3G. Next, sit back and watch AT&T squirm under the glare of the FCC.


ATT uncompetative
By modoc on 8/4/2009 11:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
Hi,
If you buy a sony ericsson phone that has WIFI (c905a) in the rest of the world, ATT specifically disables the ability to configure WIFI. Since I own the phone, and NOT ATT I find the inability to configure a feature that everyone else in the world has to be purely anticompetitive. That is, they want me to use their high-speed services and not the one I already have. How come the FCC ignore this type of behavior yet tag APPLE and GOOGLE for their anti-competitive behavior.
Modoc




RE: ATT uncompetative
By Fallen Kell on 8/4/2009 12:06:10 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
How come the FCC ignore this type of behavior yet tag APPLE and GOOGLE for their anti-competitive behavior.


Because you didn't spend millions of dollars to the politicians in the last few years and can't cash in on that investment by calling up a few Senators and Representatives who immediately call up the FCC to start looking into something, like what Google did to Apple when Apple rejected there application...


RE: ATT uncompetative
By tayhimself on 8/4/2009 2:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely brilliant f***ing post. Nothing more worth saying.


RE: ATT uncompetative
By hyvonen on 8/4/2009 3:10:51 PM , Rating: 3
You may have a crippled phone, but you got it at a heavy discount. AT&T paid nearly half of your phone for you, in exchange for having you pay for the dataplan.

If you want your wifi, be ready to pay the unsubsidized price the rest of the world has to pay.


RE: ATT uncompetative
By gstrickler on 8/4/2009 4:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want your wifi, be ready to pay the unsubsidized price the rest of the world has to pay.
Your argument would be valid if I could get a rate plan that didn't already have $10+/mo built-in to it to cover the cost of subsidizing the phone. Whether I buy a subsidized phone or a non-subsidized phone, I pay the same monthly fee, even though in 95%-99% of the cases, the subsidized and non-subsidized phones have the same features.

For 2.5 years I've been using a non-subsidized Nokia N73 because the carrier (AT&T) doesn't offer that phone. They wouldn't give me any type of discount on my monthly service nor any type of subsidy or credit for having purchased a non-subsidized phone. It's annoying, but it's the phone I wanted so I chose to pay the extra.


Just jailbreak already
By nevermore781 on 8/4/2009 12:31:14 PM , Rating: 5
I understand this is annoying, unfair, and complete BS that the app got banned, Yes, id like to be using the "official" GV app, but GV Mobile is now free on Cydia. Stop letting apple and att tell you what you can/cant have on your device and just jailbreak it.




RE: Just jailbreak already
By Helbore on 8/4/2009 3:42:28 PM , Rating: 4
Soon you will be arrested for inciting terrorism. I'm sure Lord Jobs is busy phoning the feds as we speak (his spies are everywhere, after all)


Apple is finally...
By phatboye on 8/4/2009 11:04:19 AM , Rating: 4
reaping the true benefits of this ridiculous exclusivity deal with at&t.




RE: Apple is finally...
By ExarKun333 on 8/4/2009 11:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
Remember that AT&T wasn't the first carrier (IIRC, third or so?) Apple shopped the iPhone to. The honeymoon in Vegas is over, and the companies are at each other's throats now...


RE: Apple is finally...
By smegz on 8/6/2009 2:37:34 PM , Rating: 2
But unfortunately, AT&T was the logical choice. CDMA has limited worldwide coverage (nearly none in Europe.) Going with Verizon would mean Apple would have to support 2 hardware sets for GSM and CDMA if they desired any European market share. Deciding to stick with GSM only gave Apple wider coverage on a single hardware set. Once 4G comes out, the point will be moot since AT&T and Verizon will be using the same tech.


Bye ATT??
By SoulBlighter on 8/4/2009 10:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
The way two companies heading against each other, i am seeing new Iphone Verizon next year.




RE: Bye ATT??
By Lord 666 on 8/4/2009 11:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
Its coming in the form of the LTE iPhone.


Why is the FCC involved?
By SublimeSimplicity on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By AntiM on 8/4/2009 1:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
I kind of agree. Anti-competitive business practices are the jurisdiction of the FTC and the Justice Dept.
I don't see that the FCC has any authority in this matter. Their mandate is to manage the spectrum and how it's used, not the business practices of the entity that's using the spectrum. Their only job should be to make sure one persons signals don't interfere with another persons.

The FCC is not a law making or law enforcement body.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By mars777 on 8/6/2009 3:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
Apple here is just a second target, since they are doing the "less wrong".

What is under investigation here is:

- AT&T has a by contract monopoly over the iPhone
- AT&T should not interfere in Apple decisions over the Store (by Apple EULA)
- AT&T should offer the same functionality (if possible) to all users (be from Apple or from Blackberry (where it offers the same thing))

Now if AT&T has influenced apple decisions about this app then AT&T is violating its contracts with customers and Apple it's eula.


WHERE IS PIRKS !
By chick0n on 8/4/2009 2:12:07 PM , Rating: 3
OMG ! APPLE IS THE BAD GUYS AGAIN !

Hey dickhead Pirks, what are you defenses this time ?

Go kiss job's Ass again? its getting old.




By jtvang125 on 8/4/2009 1:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
Cause the very folks at Apple claim their iPhone can be easily jailbroken by hackers, terrorists, and drug lords and compromise our cell towers.




Question
By tjr508 on 8/4/2009 4:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
What high ranking FCC official does Google have in their pocket? These guys are arguably the most crooked company on the Internet with their backdoor ISP deals and such and pose the biggest monolopy on the Internet, but for some reason the FCC takes their position damn near every time (TV spec auctions, net neutrality on broadband usage, not on their end of course, and now this).




Wow At&t
By HrilL on 8/4/2009 7:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hopefully the FCC investigation goes a little deeper than just taking these companies words for it. At&t has had a say in what applications get a approved or what features will be allowed on their 3G network. They've even admitted to this.

The fact that they'll blatantly lie about this is a cause for concern.

This will be my last year with them. Once this contract is over I'm jumping ship to Verizon with or without a new iPhone on their network.

After I wrote the CEO at At&t an email of a few of my complaints and got a reply from a girl that deals with direct complains and reports back to management about them. She tried to address my complains with complete failure and just repeated standard PR bull that I had already read. She tried to assure me that management cares about the feed back they get. But if they really cared there wouldn't have been complaints from the start. Slingblade an issue, and as was MMS messaging that is still missing. WTF MMS is standard on every phone At&t sells even the iPhone (finally) but its not supported on their network. What kind of BS is that.

I'll take my 210 a month to a company that actually serves the service they sell.




It is about monopoly in the market
By Ananke on 8/4/2009 8:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody cares yet for the type of ownership. The government is trying to asure that ATT and Apple practices are not creating monopolistic opportunity. So, in general the government is trying to keep the free market functionality, what every government in a free market economy is supposed to do. Your endless discussion was totally pointless and off the topic, guys.




Why is the FCC involved?
By SublimeSimplicity on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By amanojaku on 8/4/2009 1:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
The FCC is involved because the iPhone is a device that enables communications over a medium the FCC oversees (wireless.) The FCC has not accused Apple or AT&T of anything; it has asked Google to provide details on Google Voice, as well. According to a CNN article the FCC is currently investigating all carriers and handset makers.
quote:
The request is part of a broader-ranging inquiry by the commission on exclusive deals between cell phone carriers and handset manufacturers for hot phones. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Thursday that the FCC wants to look into rural areas where customers can't buy the latest fancy phones because of such exclusive deals.

In a statement Friday, Genachowski said the FCC "has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment." The inquiry letters "reflect the Commission's proactive approach to getting the facts and data necessary to make the best policy decisions."
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf50...


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 3:04:28 PM , Rating: 5
Apple is a private company? Nope. it is a listed company. A private company would be owned, yep, you guessed it, privately. No shareholders to be accountable to. To be a private company you would need to buy every last share and then delist the company.

Yes, sure they can do whatever they want with their app store, as long as they don't offer it for sale to consumers. You see, at that point they cannot do whatever they want with their app store. For instance they cannot sell you something, then take it back off you. There are several laws that you have to adhere to when you sell things, as there should be.

Finally, and this is the real killer. Surely when I buy something it becomes mine to do with as I please? Or has the concept of ownership been thrown out of the window?

You see when Apple sell me something I OWN that item. If it gets stolen from me then I have to report it the police. When the police ask me if it is mine, I say YES, I don't say "actually no, it is Apples".

I don't like where we are heading with this current trend of not actually owning the products you buy. More worrying is fools such as yourself defend these kind of practices.

If defending Apple makes you feel dirty, why do it? Just look at the past month of Apple stories and really, really ask yourself why!

1) Exploding iPods, refusing to give refunds unless you sign a gagging order telling no-one you got a refund or that your iPod exploding and could have possibly maimed you. Kudos to the guys who didn't sign.

2) Claiming that hacking an iPhone should be made into an offense akin to being a terrorist as a hacked iPhone has the potential to bring down the phone masts, blah blah. Totally ignoring the fact that potential terrorists couldn't give a monkeys hooter about Apple as they have a lot bigger fish to fry and a hundred virgins to look forward to when they blow themselves up.

2) The encryption on an iPhone is totally not existant. It as though apple have strapped a permanent key to the underside of every apple phone. What is the point in that?

3) After a series of misleading campaigns they bully Microsoft into removing their adverts just because they lowered their prices by $100.

4) Having an exploit on Safari that they didn't fix for 6 months, despite insuating that Apple computers are not vulnerable to malware or attack. Which is even more oustanding given the situation I just mentioned.

5) Covering up the number of injuries caused by exploding ipods, macs and claiming there just isn't that many to warrant a recall. How do we know they are telling the truth about this, considering they enforce gagging orders on people who have these kinds of problems.

6) Being economical with the truth about the state of Jobs health, when it could have affected the share price.

I'm sure I have missed a few more out, these are the ones I can recall at the top of my head! The first 5 all happened in the last MONTH! No doubt if I opened up another tab or hit google I could easily add another 5 or more points to this list.

So yeah, feel free to defend Apple. But at least do it with your eyes wide open.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 4:28:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You are quite confused. Being a publicly-listed company is not equatable to being a public service, which is what you seem to think it is.


Stop right there.

Go back and read the first line of my post. It is quite clear. Not once did I say Apple was a publically listed company. Not once did mention public-service. In fact I never once uttered the word "public" in my paragraph.

I think, Motoman, the only one confused here is you. Your post is a pin up poster boy for what is known as a straw man argument.

quote:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1] [2]


For further reading on what is a straw man, I suggest you read the following...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

If you wish to discuss my points, fine. I am all up for a reasoned and logical debate but don't try and refute things I never said and claim I am the one who is confused.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 4:40:19 PM , Rating: 5
Bravo.

Finally!! I managed to get you to tie yourself in such a knot that you ended up contradicting yourself. It was inevitable. You may know all the grammar, you may know all the spelling, but ultimately you're just thick as a plank.

Can you spot what you have just done?

I tell you what, I will let you guess. Have a good read of this post, let it all soak in and then read some of your other posts. Let's see if you spot your error.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 4:52:58 PM , Rating: 5
Ouch, this is going to hurt. You sure you're ready for this? I would have rather have emailed it you, but hey, here we go...

(Remember, these are your words...)

Motoman said:
quote:
Oh, and I thought I should just make one more clarification on the public vs. private concept as it relates to companies. An organization is only "public" in one case - when it is a governmental agency, such as the EPA, the DOT, a public library, the unemployment office, the military, etc. Any organization that is not a governmental agency is "private" - which is virtually every corporation that exists.


Then Motoman said:
quote:
There is one , and only one , way to be a "listed" company. And that is to be a publicly-listed company. There is no other form of "listing." Go ahead and look for another form of listing that isn't public . I'll wait.


and you also said

quote:
...in case you think you still have some scrap of a point you're trying to hang on to...please educate me as to what kind of "listing" it is that you were referring to that is not a public listing. Please. I would love to see it, and just think how much better we'd all be by learning from your wisdom.


:)


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 5:08:19 PM , Rating: 1
My god are you always this anal about things? You're still banging on that I got confused that Apple wasn't a public-sector company! I never said it was you numbskull, YOU claimed that's what I said on your very first post, and ever since this has been your argument against me.

Look, i'm free friday, do you want to come and have a beer with me or something, you seem kind of lonely. No tongues on the first date though, ok! :)


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/2009 5:11:51 PM , Rating: 1
You didn't even know the term "public-sector" until I told you about it, so of course you didn't use the term. But you were, and are, clearly confused about what the difference is between public and private sector companies, and what it means to be privately-held or publicly-held.

And no, I don't think I'll be having beer with you...it's not legal for 12-year-olds to drink.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 5:15:46 PM , Rating: 1
You're only 12? Sorry, I didn't know. I'll just take you to the park then.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Danger D on 8/4/2009 5:57:37 PM , Rating: 3
Your momma's so fat ... wait ... what are we talking about?


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/2009 4:43:33 PM , Rating: 1
...in case you think you still have some scrap of a point you're trying to hang on to...please educate me as to what kind of "listing" it is that you were referring to that is not a public listing. Please. I would love to see it, and just think how much better we'd all be by learning from your wisdom.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By blove on 8/5/2009 3:31:10 AM , Rating: 2
Your post is the best definition and example of a straw-man argument I have ever seen!


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 4:19:38 PM , Rating: 1
Nice argument. If it wasn't a straw man argument.

Trying to dismiss my point by claiming I insuated or introducing the phallacy that I said Apple was a public company is a complete fail.

I stopped reading on your first line because I never once said, or claimed, or even implied that Apple was a public company.

You fail.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/2009 4:20:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Apple is a private company? Nope. it is a listed company. A private company would be owned, yep, you guessed it, privately. No shareholders to be accountable to. To be a private company you would need to buy every last share and then delist the company.


...I'm sorry, you must not have read the first paragraph you typed there. Must have been sleep-typing then? You clearly are not getting that a publicly-listed company is still a private company, and therefore not subject to the whims of the public-at-large. Hence the rest of your fallacious arguement.

...nice grammar fail on "phallacy" too, BTW.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 4:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
I see a pattern emerging with your posts.

But lets roll with you for a minute.

Company x = company y = private company.

Even though

company x = listed on the stock exchange
company y = privately owned.

ah, totally with you now. I'm dealin with an idiot. I did wonder what that familiar smell was.

End of conversation with you, you're unable to hold any kind of logical discussion.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/2009 4:39:29 PM , Rating: 1
You are freaking hilarious.

Not only are you obviously not reading my posts, you are also either horribly misinformed, or suffering some mental disorder.

What you categorically don't get is that you yourself are totally mixing up what it is to be publicly-held or privately-held, and a private-sector or a public-sector company.

None of the companies mentioned here (Apple, Cargill, General Mills) are public-sector. Because, as noted, to be public-sector companies you have to be a governmental agency...at which point you are under the control of "the people."

Apple and General Mills are publicly-held companies, which is to say they are "publicly listed" or in your poor terminology, just "listed.' But they are both private companies, because neither is a governmental agency...and therefore neither of them answer to "the people" - they just answer to their stockholders.

Cargill is an example of a private-sector company that is privately-held, therfore not "listed," and therefore is not answerable to anyone other than the guy who owns it.

I'm really sorry you're having such a hard time with this. Try reading it more slowly.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 4:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, back to the straw man argument.

You keep banging on about public-sector, I never mentioned it.

Now bugger off, as you're just boring me now.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/2009 5:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct, you never mentioned it.

It would be rather irrational for you to mention a concept you aren't even aware of. That's why I'm trying to educate you.

The two concepts you need to get a handle on are:

Public-sector vs. private-sector (which is to say, government or non-government)

*and*

Publicly-held vs. privately-held (which is to say, listed or not listed)

Apple is a publicly-held private company. Period. You know what? Call Apple and ask them. Or your bank. Or an investor. Or a lawyer, an economist, a professor of business, whatever. Any of the above will confirm that for you quite nicely.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 5:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'll just ask your mum next time I'm round there. ;)


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/2009 5:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
That would be fine. She has a firm grasp on the subject, and she'd be happy to educate you on the matter.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 5:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
She certainly does have a firm grasp indeed! ;)


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/2009 4:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, sure they can do whatever they want with their app store, as long as they don't offer it for sale to consumers. You see, at that point they cannot do whatever they want with their app store. For instance they cannot sell you something, then take it back off you. There are several laws that you have to adhere to when you sell things, as there should be.


...this also perfectly demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about. Apple, as a private-sector company, whether publicly-held or privately-held, has every right to "do whatever they want with their app store." And there is not a single basis for you to contest that undeniable fact. See the DirecTV example above, and also see the Ts & Cs on the Apple site that you agree to when you use their service. That is *precisely* what those Ts & Cs say they can do, and they are precisely what you agree to as the consumer when you choose to use that service.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 5:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
The point I was making. Was that apple cannot do Whatever they like, despite being owned by shareholders, or owned privately, or even being owned by Elvis himself.

They can stick a shedload of T&C's in there, but at no point do those T&C's overide state or federal laws. They cannot do whatever they want.

Dude, you really need to get laid.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/2009 5:05:01 PM , Rating: 2
...there is no state or federal law that prohibits what they're doing with their Ts & Cs. Don't start playing out the "whatever they want" to mean things you know full well I didn't mean, like selling human babies or something. They can do whatever they want within the extent of the laws of the land, and no laws of the land prohibit what they are doing.

They are, in fact, very common Ts & Cs to have. You'll find similar language all over the place.

I get all the sex I want from my wife...thanks for worrying about me though. Someday, when you move out of your mom's basement, maybe a girl will let you touch her.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 5:10:46 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, about your wife. She used to go my school, she was called john back then.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/2009 5:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, the ad-hominem attack. Surely evidence of a strong position with your arguement.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By intelpatriot on 8/4/2009 5:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
So your position is that,

goods and services can be tied up together in any manner and with any conditions the vendor (and multiple contracting vendors) see fit?

a public limited company is just a private company with the benefit of benefit of limited liability?

And I hope your wife agreed to the T&C of your contract for sex-services :)


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By intelpatriot on 8/4/2009 5:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
dam I made a spelling phail


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/2009 5:18:04 PM , Rating: 2
As a matter of fact, you're not far off the mark there.

Within the laws of the land, a company can set the Ts & Cs for their service in any way they see fit. You, as the consumer, can choose to abide by those Ts & Cs and purchase their service, or you can choose to not purchase that service. Apple's Ts & Cs are not only perfectly legal, they're common.

A PLC only exists in the UK, as far as I know, but as far as I know they would have limited liability, in the same way than an LLC or various types of corporations would. Liability doesn't seem to have any bearing on this thread though.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By Motoman on 8/4/2009 4:18:37 PM , Rating: 1
http://www.answers.com/topic/public-company

Many definitions there for you too, if you don't want to believe me. Your favorite, I'm guessing, is on there too - Wikipedia, which starts off with "A publicly-traded company is a private company that has permission to offer its registered securities (stock, bonds, etc.) for sale to the general public..."


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By mckinney on 8/4/2009 6:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You see when Apple sell me something I OWN that item.


Not to interrupt your rant, but you own the license, not software. Have you ever read your Windows license? You get user rights, not ownership. When you "buy" your software from any of the major companies you only license it and agree to it before you run it. Here is the Vista License:

quote:
SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By dark matter on 8/4/2009 8:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
I know.

Even the phsycial product itself I don't "really" own. Because all of it is covered by patents, liceneses.

In fact, probably ten times more effort has gone into protecting each component of that particular product than has gone into producing it. And that is probably a conservative estimate.

Something has gone terribly wrong if that is the case, don't you think?


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By masteraleph on 8/4/2009 8:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
The FCC is involved not because of Apple but because of AT&T. If Apple for some random reason chooses to block, say, Skype over 3G, that's fine; maybe it destabilizes the iphone or something.

That's not the issue here, though. The issue is that ISPs aren't allowed to prevent competitors' programs from using their bandwidth or to favor their own products (for example, if Time Warner Cable offered a computer app that gave you automatic sports scores, they couldn't throttle bandwidth for or prevent an ESPN equivalent).

Now, if AT&T is an ISP in this case (unclear, though this may actually apply to all companies under the FCC's jurisdiction), then they may not be allowed to prevent Skype or Google Voice from being installed on an iPhone and using 3G. That is what the FCC is trying to find out- whether or not AT&T has any say over what's installed on the iPhone. If they do then this may be an illegal restriction on a competitor's product.


RE: Why is the FCC involved?
By eddieroolz on 8/4/2009 10:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Tell that to the EU to stop them from interfering with Microsoft then.

I smell hypocrisy from Apple fanatics.


What A Pointless Endeavor
By artemicion on 8/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: What A Pointless Endeavor
By Chris3D on 8/4/2009 1:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Either way consumers are going to be paying for the bandwidth they use. *gasp* What a horrible sounding concept."

I have no problem paying for the bandwidth I use, but I also pay for an internet connection at home, and if I can make phone calls over THAT connection I should be able to. Prohibiting this, by disallowing VOIP, is like prohibiting you from using a home land-line while you're at home and forcing you to use your mobile airtime.

This is nothing more than the stifling of technological progress to protect corporate profits.


RE: What A Pointless Endeavor
By artemicion on 8/4/2009 3:56:34 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot the iPhone had wifi. My bad.

Still don't see an issue to get the government involved though. Apple doesn't want their product used in a way that diminishes their profits. I think it's all psychological. When Apple introduced the App Store people for some reason think that they have absolute freedom to develop and distribute anything they want on the App Store.

Would the world be any better if there was no App Store and the only iPhone apps were first party apps dev'd by Apple? Either way you don't get Google Voice on your iPhone.


RE: What A Pointless Endeavor
By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2009 3:14:26 AM , Rating: 2
It'd be nice if they at least posted some rules you had to follow for an app to be approved. As such I'm sure they don't (or at least not all the rules), else Google wouldn't have bothered making this app for the iPhone.


RE: What A Pointless Endeavor
By HrilL on 8/6/2009 9:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Rules? then apple would have to follow something as well and couldn't make them up as they go along. From what I can tell you make an application and submit it. Apple checks it out steals your ideas and then says your application does the same functions one of their owns apps is going to do but its not out yet. Podcaster ring a bell?

Apple makes me sick with how dirty they run their business. Jobs is a scum bag in my book. Apple is the most anti-competitive company out there from what I can tell. But their so called small market share allows them to do as they want without Government intervention. Let me put it this way. Apple has a monopoly on apple hardware/software combos. itunes only works with the apple products. Music is locked to your apple products.

They hide their failures by making people sign gag orders in order to get a refund. I wish my iphone exploded and burnt my leg or something. Not that I want their money. I'd give it all away if I won a lawsuit against them. The world needs to know just how unethical apple really is.

Fanboy's rate how you wish but you can't deny the truth.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki