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

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!


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














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