OSNews

Apple's statement was an interesting read, very clarifying on some points. It stays a bit vague on what the "guidelines" for app approval are, but does shed some more light on the procedure and hierarchy.

AT&T restates two points made in Apple's statement, namely that AT&T is not involved, and that Google Voice can be used as a Web app instead.

Regarding both Apple's and AT&T's referral to the ability to offer Google Voice through Safari, I do assume Apple to understand that this duly affects the iPhone's distinctive user experience, which is a main argument in their own statement. The need for proper user experience is repeated by Google in response to question 5, when they discuss the distribution advantage a Google Voice App has.

Google requests secrecy on question two, on the grounds of it containing commercially sensitive information (see page 8 of 10). Indeed, I understand the need for obfuscating names and higher-order meetings regarding Google Voice. However, I am curious as to whether Google maintains its stance on the rejection phone call that a Google developer blogged about (the bottom line was: every question asked by Google resulted in a "can't discuss that" type of answer). The validity of that blog statement now seems dubious in this light.

I'm getting sick of hearing how Apple sells an experience. You may buy a product because of the promised experience (sales pitch IMHO) but at the end of the day you are still buying physical device that you know own. You should be able to install whatever app you want on it. If Apple's AppStore isn't willing to offer these apps then let third party app stores sell them, just at the cost of losing the iProduct experience.

A high end prostitute could argue that she isn't selling sex, she's selling an experience that men want.