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 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.

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki