backtop


Print 76 comment(s) - last by KWRussell.. on Aug 11 at 2:32 PM


Google refuses to respect Apple's authority to police the app store and is releasing its rejected Google Voice app as a full-featured web version.  (Source: Comedy Central)
Getting rejected from the app store is no biggie for Google, apparently

Apple rejected Google Voice almost two weeks ago, removing it from the app store.  Now under investigation by the feds, AT&T has pointed the finger at Apple for the rejection.  Now in an exciting move Google is moving its rejected application online in an effort to essentially negate any attempts by Apple to police the application.

The new app can be installed as an icon on your homescreen.  The specially crafted iPhone-shaped webpage will offer all the features of the original app.  In other words, in a move akin to flipping the bird to Steve Jobs, Google has essentially highlighted a way for app developers everywhere to easily publish their rejected content.

There are some important caveats.  First, Google's app was intended to be free in the first place.  Apps like "MeSoHoly", which Apple rejected as offensive were intended to come at a minimal charge.  Donations could work, but Apple's simple revenue sharing would be missed by developers forsaking the app store.  Second, its not as trivial to build the app online, and there's still things that can't be done within the iPhone's version of Safari.

On the other hand the move could usher in a new era of freedom for iPhone users.  Freed from Apple's dictates of what apps are fit and proper, the phone's true potential could finally be achieved.  Rejected apps like eBook readers (rejected en masse over piracy concerns) could simply move online.  As the New York Times' Dave Pogue puts it, "What's Apple going to do now? Start blocking access to individual Web sites?"

Google Voice online will offer free SMS text messaging and reduced rate international calling.  The cheap calls are achieved via a scheme similar to Skype's.  Text messages are normally almost completely free to carriers use extra capacity for SMS which was previously unused.  Granted, they represent a minimal cost in terms of cell phone tower power and the loss of potential revenue from selling the part of the channel, but in the end they come at little cost to the telecoms, while the average cell phone users pays $10 or more on their phone bills a month for them (some plans include per-message billing, which can run as much as $0.20 per message).

Google's decision to defy Apple is an exciting development.  And one thing's for sure -- Apple's likely not happy and is likely trying to scheme how to stop them.


Comments     Threshold


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

How about some proofreading please?
By Kosh401 on 8/7/2009 4:41:04 PM , Rating: 5
I probably shouldn't have even starting reading the article when I saw Jason Mick wrote it, but I couldn't go on after the first paragraph. Seriously, how does "Now in an exciting move Google is moving it's rejected application online an effort..." get posted and is expected to pass as journalism O_o

"Now in an exciting move , Google is moving its rejected application online in an effort..."

I'm not an English student or grammar Nazi but damn.




RE: How about some proofreading please?
By 91TTZ on 8/7/2009 4:58:33 PM , Rating: 4
I agree completely. Dailytech writers should at least proofread the articles before they publish them.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Tamale on 8/8/2009 9:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
'in mass' instead of en masse is pretty bad too


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Tamale on 8/8/2009 9:20:59 AM , Rating: 3
heh.. and what's this?

"as they use extra capacity previously unused capacity."

huh?


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By acase on 8/8/2009 9:31:31 AM , Rating: 3
and we close it out with this gem:

quote:
Google's decision to defying Apple is an exciting development.


Seriously, I don't think I have read a mistake proof Mick article on this site in almost a year that I've been looking at it.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Omega215D on 8/10/2009 12:22:25 AM , Rating: 3
All your Google's are belong to us.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By MamiyaOtaru on 8/10/2009 3:51:37 AM , Rating: 2
are you saying there is something wrong with Google's in the context in which it was used?


By jimbojimbo on 8/10/2009 10:38:01 AM , Rating: 1
Was this article about grammar or something? WTF??


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Natfly on 8/7/2009 5:16:54 PM , Rating: 5
It's post first, edit later. The worst part is that edits are done silently, which isn't so bad for typos but inaccuracies aren't even acknowledged, just ninja-edited away.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By ziggo on 8/7/2009 5:53:23 PM , Rating: 5
It's post first, edit later. The worst part is that edits are done silently, which isn't so bad for typos but inaccuracies aren't even acknowledged, just ninja-edit ed away.

Phrase of the day. All undeclared edits shall now be referred to as "ninja edits."

Adding to the confusion, commentors cannot edit at all, while the writers have full ninja edit permissions. I demand editing for the masses!


By osalcido on 8/8/2009 2:25:33 AM , Rating: 2
That phrase has been around for a while...


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By spartan014 on 8/8/2009 2:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
Look out Natfly.. The ninjas are out to get you and oh boy, they are pissed off...


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Natfly on 8/8/2009 3:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
By MrBlastman on 8/10/2009 12:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.realultimatepower.net

Old... but still classic. :)


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By HotFoot on 8/8/09, Rating: 0
By lycium on 8/8/2009 7:42:55 AM , Rating: 5
nope, his grammar was fine and you broke it.


By Flunk on 8/8/2009 12:38:38 PM , Rating: 3
That be a double negative, it ain't the ways we type rounds heres.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By cqxray on 8/9/2009 12:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not an English student nor grammar Nazi but damn.


Strictly speaking, it should either:

I am neither an English student nor a grammar Nazi, but damn.

or:

I am not an English student; neither am I a grammar Nazi. But damn.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Ammohunt on 8/10/2009 2:48:10 PM , Rating: 3
Or or

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago -- never mind how long precisely -- having little or no money in my purse, neither being a Student of english nor a grammar facist thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world.


By foolsgambit11 on 8/10/2009 4:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
And some 600 pages later....

On the second day, a sail drew near, nearer, and picked me up at last. It was the devious-spawn of Wm. F. Buckley, that in her retracing search after her missing children, only found another orphan.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By cqxray on 8/9/2009 12:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not an English student nor grammar Nazi but damn.


Strictly speaking, it should be either:

I am neither an English student nor a grammar Nazi, but damn.

or:

I am not an English student; neither am I a grammar Nazi. But damn.


By sdsdv10 on 8/9/2009 2:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

quote:
I'm not an English student nor grammar Nazi but damn.


Strictly speaking, it should be either:

I am neither an English student nor a grammar Nazi, but damn.

or:

I am not an English student; neither am I a grammar Nazi. But damn.


Strictly speaking, one shouldn't double post... :P


By atlmann10 on 8/8/2009 11:40:00 AM , Rating: 3
The worst part is if you wrote your articles in WORD, or even free office, not to mention any other text editing program it would catch these errors. I think it is just lazy!


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By ElderTech on 8/8/2009 3:24:20 PM , Rating: 2
While I'm generally loath to digress into journalist issues when they are off topic, I couldn't help myself on this one. An early comment chided the OP for using "it's" instead of "its" for the possessive. "It's" obvious this person is too young to understand "it's" origin, double entrendre intended. Here's a link to a very concise explanation of why either use is accurate for the possessive, although not necessarily optimal for young or less informed readers:

http://www.word-detective.com/back-d.html


By Piyono on 8/8/2009 5:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
I enjoyed that article, thanks.


By Kosh401 on 8/9/2009 6:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm.... if by too young you mean I was not around during Shakespearean times when "it's" was used as a possessive and "tis" was used as "it is", then yes you are right... I am too young to understand or remember that...

I think your misdirected attempt to insult me comes from your interpretation of the article you linked; the article is saying that there are still some old schools of thought around the use of "it's" as a possessive today. A quote from the article says, "old habits die hard." It also states "it's" was used as a possessive during Shakespeare's time and up until the 19th century. That is the old thought and habit of speech they are referring to.

A few minutes on Google produces many links to Universities and other websites explaining how the terms are properly used today. Here are the first three pages I opened:

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000227.htm
http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/UsIts.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/its.html

So if I'm young and misinformed, does that make you old and ignorant? Welcome to the 21st century.


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Uracas on 8/8/2009 8:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
Its free guys, come on... How many languages are you fluent in?

:)


RE: How about some proofreading please?
By Muirgheasa on 8/10/2009 11:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think that's really relevant though, is it? I'm fluent in two languages, which is why I don't masquerade as a writer working in a third or fourth one. Minimum standards are not too much to ask, and the bar we're setting is in no way too high.

To be honest though, I've more or less learnt to ignore the mistakes. If Jason Mick had any desire to stop making them, he would have stopped by now; the fact that every single article he writes draws so much criticism for the mistakes made means he can hardly be unaware of them.


By Parhel on 8/10/2009 11:52:10 AM , Rating: 5
In his defense, writers aren't usually expected to proofread their own work. Most publications employ dedicated proofreaders, and if you were to ask one I doubt that Mick's work would stand out as any worse than what they receive every day. If I can understand the article, and it isn't overly sloppy, I'm not going get bent out of shape about it. At the very least, the site's management is at least as much to blame as the author. What I'm much more bothered by is the site's tendency toward sensationalism and even outright misinformation, which seems to have worsened in recent months.


By teng029 on 8/10/2009 1:46:35 PM , Rating: 3
one of the first things they teach aspiring journalists is to not sensationalize a story. report the facts, and that's it. at least that's what i was taught. so including the word "exciting" in any story sticks out like a sore thumb.

that being said, it is a blog and i liken them to diary entries than true journalistic work. still, considering the context of the article, i hardly find google's move exciting; interesting perhaps, but not exciting.


Easy to Block
By oab on 8/7/2009 4:07:36 PM , Rating: 1
All Apple needs to do is release a patch. In the patch that (ala windows Hosts file) blocks the phone from connecting to the iphone.talk.google.com web address. (assuming that is the web address)




RE: Easy to Block
By omnicronx on 8/7/2009 4:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
And then all Google needs to do is change the web address, its not like they are going to block any subaddress of google.com. It would be quite easy to release an updated icon with a new address every time Apple releases an update.


RE: Easy to Block
By Totally on 8/7/2009 6:16:26 PM , Rating: 4
Can you say Censorship? I bet you that they would have 100 lawsuits on their desks faster than you can say that word.


RE: Easy to Block
By omnicronx on 8/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Easy to Block
By Alexstarfire on 8/8/2009 3:25:31 AM , Rating: 2
Let them go ahead and do it then. That'll likely kill any future iPhone purchases.


RE: Easy to Block
By Marlonsm on 8/8/2009 11:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
No, they won't, as long as it has that shiny apple in its back and the i in the name. People will still buy it.

But that would, for sure, reduce the sales.


RE: Easy to Block
By Flunk on 8/8/2009 12:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't buy it and neither will anyone else with half a brain.


RE: Easy to Block
By kmmatney on 8/8/2009 6:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I used to say that until my work gave me an iPhone. Now that I have one, I hgave to say it Kicks Ass. I probably wouldn't dish out my own money for one (I don't have my own cell phone), but as a product it's frickin awesome.


RE: Easy to Block
By SiliconAddict on 8/9/2009 9:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
Umm Apple users....so your comment is talking about half a brain. All they see is the Apple logo and OOOOOO I need one. No matter the price.


RE: Easy to Block
By xti on 8/10/2009 10:34:07 AM , Rating: 2
its called having a good product? not everyone cares that it cant do such and such detail, they care that its sleek, replaces the ipod, trendy, etc.

half a brain, stop sales, you guys need to live in reality.


RE: Easy to Block
By omnicronx on 8/10/2009 11:28:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That'll likely kill any future iPhone purchases.
That was kind of my point (That this could be the only outcome, not that it will). Although for some reason mention something that does not bash Apple and you get instantly rated. The OP is flat out wrong in saying that people could sue Apple for censoring their own store.

Personally I don't buy anything Apple because I don't like anyone telling me what I can and cannot do with my hardware/software, and thats about the only thing you can do.
quote:
That'll likely kill any future iPhone purchases.
You are seriously over underestimating Apples business strategy. They don't need everyone buying their products to be successful, every single Apple product sits on the border of being a niche product and as such a large portion of its user base that is flat out uninformed. I think you are kidding yourself if you think the masses care about (or even know about) certain apps being censored. Heck I bet I could go on the street right now and find 10 iPhone users and 9 of them probably won't know about any of Apples recent censored Applications.

While I definitely agree with your stance, I do not agree that censoring apps will significantly effect the iPhones/App Stores progress. If anything this added 'protection' (if you can call it that) will be hailed in certain circles for keeping our kids 'safe'.

If you are the kind of person that searches the internet for the latest and greatest (i.e that includes pretty much anyone here), you probably are not Apples main demographic, even if you do own an Apple product.


RE: Easy to Block
By foolsgambit11 on 8/10/2009 4:48:39 PM , Rating: 1
They definitely couldn't run the "The iPhone browses the whole internet" ads anymore then. Not that they do anymore, since other smartphones can now - and with Flash.


Is a year the limit for human memory?
By alangerow on 8/7/2009 4:33:36 PM , Rating: 5
Please refrain from claiming that putting Apps on-line is some sort of power play against Apple.

Do people not remember the world 2 years ago? Before there was an App Store for the iPhone, the official stance of Apple was: If you want to create Apps for the iPhone, then you were directed to create a web app to use within the Safari browser.

It wasn't until many many people displayed a lack of desire to be limited to a web interface that eventually forced Apple to reverse it's decision and open up the iPhone platform to developers AT ALL. And the end result has been the developer-nightmare of working within the Apple draconian approval system, which has more to do with what is being served for lunch in the Apple cafeteria than it does with any set of requirements (Sloppy Joe Day means happy reviewers and more Apps accepted ... Google Voice must have been reviewed on Mystery Meatloaf Day).

So, Google is doing nothing more than returning to how Apple wanted developers to make their applications available to iPhone users IN THE FIRST PLACE! That's why it's mind-numbingly easy to put a web page link & icon onto the home screen, as that was the way users were supposed to "add Apps".

The App Store is an after thought; Apple caving to developer desire. Programming an App to work over the web, bypassing the App Store process, is not flicking the bird at Steve Jobs any more than doing exactly what someone tells you to do is defying them.




By sxr7171 on 8/7/2009 4:37:20 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah I like sloppy joe too, I mean who doesn't?


RE: Is a year the limit for human memory?
By HakonPCA on 8/7/2009 5:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
yup they did want this at first, and since then they have sold over 1 billion apps, a fine chuck of pie, I'm sure they don't want to go backwards in that regard.


By alangerow on 8/7/2009 5:51:28 PM , Rating: 3
While very true, they've made tons of money off of being proven wrong (since Apple really did try really hard to push back on developers against allowing native Apps) and they aren't going to want to lose that cash-cow now ... it still isn't anything like giving Apple "the finger" to move an app to the web that was rejected from the App Store.

It's just moving it from Apple's reluctantly embraced native App solution to its original intention Web App solution.

And it's not even the first time Google has made this move. Google Latitude (was it?) was rejected from the iPhone App Store, only to appear weeks later as a Web App.


By RussiaRunOnGag on 8/7/2009 6:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
Silly Silly Silly HakonPCA!

They only had a billion apps downloaded...sold no.

In soviet Russia, regards backwards you!


This is news?
By DCstewieG on 8/7/2009 5:05:34 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously? This is exactly what anyone would have done (and did) pre-API release.




RE: This is news?
By MozeeToby on 8/7/2009 5:15:44 PM , Rating: 5
Still a strong move by Google. This isn't just some app or restaurant search tool, it's a pretty complex program that adds significant functionality to the iPhone, functionality that Apple and ATT apparently don't want the iPhone to have.

Apple has been busy saying "We control what goes on your iPhone", Google just answered back "No, no you don't" proving even extremely complex content can be hosted online and there's nothing Apple and ATT can do about it. Almost more importantly, they just sent a message to every developer that has had an app rejected; move it to the cloud and take control back.


Check
By HaB1971 on 8/7/2009 4:09:35 PM , Rating: 5
If this works then thats a blow to Commrade Jobs. The 1.0 version of his iLiver must be spinning in its jar.




RE: Check
By 67STANG on 8/7/2009 4:53:05 PM , Rating: 3
It's not a tuma!


Google > Apple
By Danish1 on 8/7/2009 4:09:09 PM , Rating: 5
If you can't join them, beat them!




Good for Google.
By Motoman on 8/7/2009 5:16:16 PM , Rating: 5
Apple App Store != Open Market

Internet = Open Market

Google FTW.




This is really where most programs need to go
By rudy on 8/7/2009 4:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
I use gizmo voip and most of the time I just hit the website rather then installing the program. The main reason most applications need to stay on the web is because the phone market unlike the PC industry is not unified you have a half a dozen major players and building apps for all of them is a pain just make it work on the web and then all of them can use it.




By PrinceGaz on 8/8/2009 2:24:21 PM , Rating: 2
That might be fine for the iPhone, but not so good for the iPod touch as you cannot guarantee an open WiFi signal everywhere. Where possible I avoid using WebApps if an App I can install that does a similar job is available.


The end of the cell providers as we know it
By RonnieJamesDio on 8/7/2009 11:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
This seems like the next step in the long-running conversion of voice into data. VoIP protocols have been doing this in the landline space for years. Taken to the logical extreme this will see the big wireless providers becoming ethereal versions of the Baby Bells- forced to lease their infrastructure to Johhny-Come-Lately companies to the cellco business able to provide the same or better phone service based entirely on an IP data stream.

It seems such a thing would trouble their current bedfellow T-Mobile just as much as Apple/AT&T. I wonder if this is just google stirring up the wireless pot, or the next step in their plot to rule the world?




By ChristopherO on 8/8/2009 8:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how this would trouble T-Mo. My unlimited plan costs $50 from them (you have to be a customer 22 months or greater). I frankly don't understand why VZW and AT&T can charge what they charge because there are other alternatives available that are orders of magnitude less pricey. Granted not all networks are good in all places, so reception is obviously a big factor too.

About the only good thing mobile VOIP accomplishes is potentially force international rates to be something reasonable. None of the wireless carriers have anything resembling decent international rates.

The other thing that annoys me is lack of net-neutrality. I don't think it's as big of a deal on wired services (because they don't seem to be abusing anything, even though they sure talk about it alot), but wireless carriers have tons of restrictions. I think AT&T could probably already block Google Voice because I think their ToS explicitly forbids VOIP services on their data network.


Hyperbole, Much?
By GeorgeH on 8/7/2009 6:05:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
in an exciting move

Your annual beige khaki, paint drying, wall staring, BYO lukewarm water and saltines party must be absolutely epic.




Link?
By toyotabedzrock on 8/7/2009 7:44:27 PM , Rating: 3
No link to the app?




bah
By osalcido on 8/8/2009 4:41:56 PM , Rating: 3
Mick strikes again




It's vs its
By ElderTech on 8/8/2009 3:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
While I'm generally loath to digress into journalist issues when they are off topic, I couldn't help myself on this one. An early comment chided the OP for using "it's" instead of "its" for the possessive. "It's" obvious this person is too young to understand "it's" origin, double entrendre intended. Here's a link to a very concise explanation of why either use is accurate for the possessive, although not necessarily optimal for young or less informed readers:

http://www.word-detective.com/back-d.html




google voice
By alex8878 on 8/8/2009 7:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
Time has changed. Apple is forbidding iPhone users to install Google Voice app on the device. They decided to take it off App Store. Why? Just because.
This smart phone is essentially a computer with operating system and an ability to install third party software like any other computer. When I called Apple, tech support representative informed me that Apple does not have to explain why they are forbidding me to install Google apps after I purchased device planning to use it with Google Voice. She also informed me that App Store is like any other store has right to choose what they put on their shelves.
Well, I respect their choice, but the last time I checked in my neighborhood mall none of their stores are FORBIDING me to use products from anywhere else but from their store. Does Apple respect my choice? Communist China government did not dare to make Lenovo give me a list of software I can install on my laptop. Lenovo respects my choice because they know what will happen with their laptops if they would try to deny this choice to people in free world.
Just imagine what would happen if Microsoft make an agreement with Comcast and set up a list of software you are allowed to install. What if they allow you to connect to internet only through Comcast? What if Comcast decides they not like some software and a week later Microsoft would FORBID using it without any meaningful explanation? That would definitely be considered mafia-like behavior and nobody would tolerate it.
We are not tolerating this behavior neither from China, US government, Microsoft, nor from Comcast. For how long are we going to tolerate this behavior from Apple? I erased my iPhone, I smashed it with hammer and I will send it on Monday to Steve Jobs, c/o Apple 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino, CA 95014
Time has changed.




By Zensen on 8/9/2009 12:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
meh! a whole load of exaggerated trite. The apple thing has been blown out of proportion with this article but saying that I think the apple app store is going at it the wrong way even if they do demand to be listened to considering how 'successful' it has become.

Google voice is interesting but that's about it. Im all for free calls but I can get that already on skype and how many freaking numbers do people need to consolidate?

Are you going to move all your phone calls to google voice? is that what the company who has given you that free phone is going to do? so that you can use your own phone for personal calls? How useful is this really going to be... less phones to carry around? business phones are usually free anyways...




By overlandpark4me on 8/10/2009 1:27:57 AM , Rating: 2
with all of the spelling, but what would have pushed it over the top would have been if "your" and "you're" were used incorrectly. Then I could have had that blogger/gamer Déjà vu moment........




By chick0n on 8/7/2009 9:52:29 PM , Rating: 1
Hahaha.

Apple will fall one day.




By chick0n on 8/7/2009 9:52:29 PM , Rating: 1
Hahaha.

Apple will fall one day.




Why must a company lose money
By Scott66 on 8/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why must a company lose money
By omnicronx on 8/7/2009 4:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
So Apple somehow loses money when they do not provide voice and text services? and I am pretty sure they receive cash on a per iphone sold basis, not what plan a user signs up for. I still don't see what Apple has to gain unless they have an up and coming system that is similar to Google Talk, and it is very doubtful that AT&T would ever allow it.


RE: Why must a company lose money
By Scott66 on 8/7/2009 4:30:52 PM , Rating: 1
I am pretty sure there is an agreement between Apple and AT&T and knowing the latter, there will be some penalties if the agreement is broken.


RE: Why must a company lose money
By sxr7171 on 8/7/2009 4:35:14 PM , Rating: 5
Such an agreement would be illegal, Mr. Apple apologist.


RE: Why must a company lose money
By omnicronx on 8/7/2009 6:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
AT&T already claimed they were not the ones to ask apple to reject the app (and Apple has not claimed otherwise). And of course if this was the case, why is there a Skype app?


RE: Why must a company lose money
By Einy0 on 8/7/2009 7:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
The Skype app only works on WiFi.


RE: Why must a company lose money
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/7/2009 4:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Verizon currently allows Google Voice on its phones. I just got in and am planning on setting it up and moving to the friends and family plan. That way via the GVDialer app, I can friend Google Voice and make all my calls through it and essentially get unlimited minutes at a cheaper rate. A lot of people are doing that, apparently...

Apple/AT&T are in the minority in blocking this technology. And AT&T says Apple is to blame.


RE: Why must a company lose money
By monomer on 8/7/2009 5:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
Hmnmm, I'd do that, but then I'd be faced with the embarrasing task of explaining why Google is my only friend.


RE: Why must a company lose money
By acase on 8/8/2009 9:48:16 AM , Rating: 1
I somehow doubt that would be hard for him...


RE: Why must a company lose money
By KWRussell on 8/11/2009 2:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And AT&T says Apple is to blame.


And that's good enough for you? You're taking AT&T at their word?

AT&T are the ones who are going to lose money to GV. They have a tremendous financial incentive to lie about who ordered the Code Red on GVDialer. Why would Apple care? They make their money on the handsets and the software ecosystem. They don't care what network the packets travel over, as long as one or both endpoints is an iPhone.

It's clear that Apple's agreement with AT&T gives the phone company veto power over apps that use their voice/data network. AT&T has already used that authority to force WiFi-only restrictions on the iPhone versions of Skype and SlingPlayer. (Maybe if AT&T's network was as robust as Verizon's...)

It's easy for AT&T to pass the buck to Apple, since the "separation of powers" in their agreement makes Apple the enforcer of the rules.

If your city council authored and passed a bad, stupid law, you wouldn't buy it if a councilman said, "Don't blame me, the cops are the ones making the arrests," would you?


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














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