Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 19th Sep 2009 22:27 UTC, submitted by haus
Legal The whole saga around the rejection of the official Google Voice client for the iPhone continues to play a prominent role on many websites. We all remember that the FCC had asked the three companies involved, AT&T, Google, and Apple, to answer a number of questions, but Google had censored a part of its letter. The censored section has now been published by Google.
Order by: Score:
Hard to tell...
by sigzero on Sat 19th Sep 2009 22:50 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

Apple has continued to state even after this latest Google revelation that it didn't reject the app. I guess time might tell. I doubt the FCC will do anything about it in any case.

Reply Score: 3

No contradiction
by Eugenia on Sat 19th Sep 2009 22:59 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

In my own personal opinion, there's no contradiction. Apple flat-out lied in their reply to FCC. And I am not saying that because Google said their thing to FCC and Apple said their own thing to FCC (it's one word against the other anyway). The reason I say this is because of what happened to the OTHER google voice applications, applications written by third parties that had nothing to do with Google.

And what happened to them was that they were first approved, and then, a few weeks later (when Google submitted their own app), they were UNapproved. Which tells me, that Apple didn't care too much about the whole google voice thing at first, and then when Google itself submitted their own OFFICIAL app for google voice, then Apple did a 180 degree change to their policy because they realized that the official app has more weight.

Because of what happened to these two OTHER apps, it tells me that Apple DID reject Google's app, and that what they are saying right now that the app is STILL under "inspection" (after all these months) is pure hogwash. Bullshit. Bollocks.

Edited 2009-09-19 23:01 UTC

Reply Score: 12

RE: No contradiction
by Piot on Sun 20th Sep 2009 00:11 UTC in reply to "No contradiction"
Piot Member since:
2009-09-17

You might be right, but what possible motive does Apple have?

If Apple flat-out rejected the app, and they new that the FCC was also talking to Google.... then why lie?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: No contradiction
by segedunum on Sun 20th Sep 2009 00:31 UTC in reply to "RE: No contradiction"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You have to look at the nature of Google Voice. It basically takes over the phone - you get one Google number you can use anywhere you are, you use that instead of your appointed iPhone one on whatever network you happen to be on and you then only need data access from your iPhone. Your mobile network is bypassed and it also effectively takes software control of the phone away from Apple. If Google Voice takes off in a big way, and there is every reason to believe it would (I'd run out and use it tomorrow), as Apple see it they would be held hostage by Google. If GV took off and then wasn't there then people wouldn't be interested, and it makes changing phones and networks a hell of a lot easier. Strategically, Apple are just plain uncomfortable with that.

Why would Apple lie? They just want everything to go in a circle that will never complete and hope it all goes away because they don't have an answer to it themselves.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: No contradiction
by krtekz on Sun 20th Sep 2009 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No contradiction"
krtekz Member since:
2007-05-31

Receiving phone calls from Google Voice number still need the real cell phone number and voice network instead of data, no?

Edited 2009-09-20 00:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: No contradiction
by Eugenia on Sun 20th Sep 2009 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No contradiction"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Yes, it does. It doesn't kill the current lines, but it essentially makes the telecom companies bit carriers rather than "brands" with "products". And bit carriers is what they should be IMO.

Edited 2009-09-20 01:42 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: No contradiction
by kragil on Sun 20th Sep 2009 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No contradiction"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

I like "dumb pipes" better.

I like my formats open, my pipes dumb and my bits controled by me please.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: No contradiction
by gfolkert on Sun 20th Sep 2009 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No contradiction"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

I like "dumb pipes" better.

I like my formats open, my pipes dumb and my bits controlled by me please.


Ding, Ding, Ding. Thank you! A cupie doll to kragil for the dead on bulls-eye hit!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: No contradiction
by dindin on Mon 21st Sep 2009 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No contradiction"
dindin Member since:
2006-03-29

Yes, it does. It doesn't kill the current lines, but it essentially makes the telecom companies bit carriers rather than "brands" with "products". And bit carriers is what they should be IMO.



you should be careful what you wish for.

the reason why Home broadband is relatively cheap is because companies make money by selling their voice or video service.

The reason why Wireless broadband is expensive here in the States is they were "leased" for a huge cost from the goverment.

If the companies are reduced to dumb pipes, then you will get a dumb pipe. You may also get bit based billing. And also be stuck with outdated technologies because companies would see no benefit to spending all the meney for network upgarding when they have not made their initial investment cost.

We all want cheap access, but someone will pay. Maybe everyone will become an IP service provider ona goverment run Wireless Network.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: No contradiction
by segedunum on Mon 21st Sep 2009 12:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No contradiction"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, but the point is that the number becomes irrelevant because you don't use it. The network operator becomes little more than a data carrier, and you can change operators merely based on the price of data carrying and change devices as new methods of data carrying become available - i.e. better WiFi coverage.

It's dangerous to the mobile operators and dangerous to Apple's lock-in.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: No contradiction
by kaiwai on Sun 20th Sep 2009 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No contradiction"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You have to look at the nature of Google Voice. It basically takes over the phone - you get one Google number you can use anywhere you are, you use that instead of your appointed iPhone one on whatever network you happen to be on and you then only need data access from your iPhone. Your mobile network is bypassed and it also effectively takes software control of the phone away from Apple. If Google Voice takes off in a big way, and there is every reason to believe it would (I'd run out and use it tomorrow), as Apple see it they would be held hostage by Google. If GV took off and then wasn't there then people wouldn't be interested, and it makes changing phones and networks a hell of a lot easier. Strategically, Apple are just plain uncomfortable with that.

Why would Apple lie? They just want everything to go in a circle that will never complete and hope it all goes away because they don't have an answer to it themselves.


And if it did - it still wouldn't change the fact that it is my device, I paid for it and by hell or high water I can load any damn thing I please on it. It is not up to Apple to be the gate keeper of what can and can't be loaded on to *MY* iPod Touch.

I had a look through the applications on the AppStore right now, most of their are absolutely crap and many duplicate what is already available either on the phone or is yet the 1000th poor written app that makes farting sounds.

It truly is pathetic when I see Apple try and defend the indefensible. Its my damn device and I'll decide what I and to load onto it - the moment that the transaction is finished, I own it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: No contradiction
by nt_jerkface on Sun 20th Sep 2009 02:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No contradiction"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

If you're concerned with device restrictions then you shouldn't have bought from Apple in the first place. There are plenty of alternatives to the iphone out there, most of the apps as you noted are crap anyways.


http://www.jfplayhouse.com/2009/09/happy-douchebag-day-out.html

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: No contradiction
by kaiwai on Sun 20th Sep 2009 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No contradiction"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If you're concerned with device restrictions then you shouldn't have bought from Apple in the first place. There are plenty of alternatives to the iphone out there, most of the apps as you noted are crap anyways.


Where did I state that I used an iPhone - read the bloody post before replying. I have an iPod Touch, not an iPhone and I clearly stated that in my post but hey, like most people around here - you don't read the damn post, you scan it then reply based on key words that pop out at you.

Btw, what are the alternatives to the iPod Touch? You mean the Archos device which I bought that ended up dying in 3 days and it cost me a grand total in shipping costs back to the US NZ$40 just to get a refund (ignoring the original cost of NZ$150 to get it to NZ via a remailer); or the fact that the Microsoft Zune doesn't sell in New Zealand and Microsoft refuses to support Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[6]: No contradiction
by nt_jerkface on Sun 20th Sep 2009 05:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No contradiction"
RE[6]: No contradiction
by aplo on Mon 21st Sep 2009 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No contradiction"
aplo Member since:
2007-10-08

Btw, what are the alternatives to the iPod Touch? You mean the Archos device which I bought that ended up dying in 3 days and it cost me a grand total in shipping costs back to the US NZ$40 just to get a refund (ignoring the original cost of NZ$150 to get it to NZ via a remailer); or the fact that the Microsoft Zune doesn't sell in New Zealand and Microsoft refuses to support Mac OS X.

For many tasks Nokia's N800/N810 is a good alternative. Maybe not that sleek as a music player but certainly one of the most portable Linux computers. And old models are getting cheap as the new N900 is coming to the market.

If you look for an alternative for Iphone, it's better to wait for N900 come all the way there. Note that all of them are free in the broad sense of the word.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: No contradiction
by boldingd on Mon 21st Sep 2009 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No contradiction"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Btw, what are the alternatives to the iPod Touch?


If you'd actually like an answer to that question, then: iRiver actually makes a lot of excellent devices, with a lot of them being fairly cheap and having broad format support. I have a iRiver Spin; I got it because it was cheap (on newegg -- I think it was on sale for deep discount when I got it), and because it plays Ogg Vorbis files ass well as MP3s. It has an AM/FM radio, a touch screen, and video playback, too.
Frankly, there's also the PSP. It's a great podcacher, an adequate MP3 player in general, it mounts as a USB mass storage device (on any OS), has a Skype client (and built-in WiFi), and, you know, plays games, too. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: No contradiction
by darknexus on Mon 21st Sep 2009 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No contradiction"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Btw, what are the alternatives to the iPod Touch?


I suppose that would depend on what, exactly, you're looking for in a portable device of this nature. There's iRiver who make a lot of good portable media player devices, though they concentrate on that area and don't have a lot of the more internet-related features of the Touch. I suppose a tablet could take the place of the Touch for some, something like the Nokia N800 or N810. However, when you come right down to it and given the subjective nature of what would be considered an alternative, there may not be one. In my case, for example, there isn't as the iPod Touch is the only pmp device that has voice output so that someone like me who is unable to see the screen can still use it and interact with all of its functions. In fact, really, for in-built accessibility such as this in a mainstream system there is really nowhere else for me to look than Apple, in my case they literally are the only alternative unless I want to get screwed over by paying 3x what everyone else pays so that I can get a "special" device that will only do half what even the iRiver products can do. So, for me, there is no alternative at all, Apple is the only brand to buy that makes sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: No contradiction
by juvenile4909 on Sun 20th Sep 2009 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No contradiction"
juvenile4909 Member since:
2007-08-04

you are delusional.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: No contradiction - delusional
by jabbotts on Sun 20th Sep 2009 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No contradiction"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

A person's desire to control where and what software is installed on there purchased hardware is delusional? It's madness to use purchased hardware to the limits of it's technological abilities rather than limitations imposed the politics and business decisions?

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

A person's desire to control where and what software is installed on there purchased hardware is delusional? It's madness to use purchased hardware to the limits of it's technological abilities rather than limitations imposed the politics and business decisions?


What I find funny are those who think that control over ones hardware purchase as 'delusional' are quite happy to deride the idea of nanny state - happy to hate nanny state but adamant that its perfectly ok for a mega corporation telling them what they can and can't load onto their hardware.

Side Note: If Apple is lying about this issue (as it seems to be the case), what about the accusation laid against AT&T regarding the loading of software onto the device - how much influence has the exclusive carrier had on the decision? The fact that Apple are so willing to allocate resources to close holes in their iPhone tells me there are other forces at play beyond just them. This isn't to excuse their behaviour but having allowed time machine backups to non-time capsule hardware in one update but never reversing that decision tells me that concern over exclusivity of hardware isn't a particular problem.

Edited 2009-09-20 20:29 UTC

Reply Score: 4

aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

I definitely think you can support a corporations freedom to decide what they want to offer to their customers and yet not support a nanny state...

i have a choice in my telephone manufacturer and my dial tone provider...

I do not have a choice in the current elected government...sure I can cast my vote, but if it differs than popular opinion, i still have no choice.

If one corporation tells me i can't do something i want to do, someone else will offer that to me if they want my money. A gov't doesn't have the luxury of competition. Sure if I disagree, I could leave the country, but that is a little different than changing my cell service/insurance company/internet service/etc...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: No contradiction
by Soulbender on Mon 21st Sep 2009 07:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No contradiction"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Don't you know? You're only licensing the use of the iPod Touch to play music. No one owns anything anymore. What kind of communist ideas are those anyway?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: No contradiction
by boldingd on Mon 21st Sep 2009 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No contradiction"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

No one owns anything anymore. What kind of communist ideas are those anyway?


Very strange ones, given that not having individual ownership is kinda the bedrock principle of communism.

I know that was the joke in the first place; I had to say it. I'm sorry!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: No contradiction
by tomcat on Mon 21st Sep 2009 03:17 UTC in reply to "RE: No contradiction"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

You might be right, but what possible motive does Apple have?


Because Apple's actions indicate intent. They don't want to be seen to be shutting Google out of the voice app marketplace because it makes it all the more likely that the FCC will start regulating Apple.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Lazarus
by Lazarus on Sun 20th Sep 2009 02:19 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

I've got nothing important to add here, but I will say that I trust Google more than I trust Apple. For a company that makes some damned nice products, Apple sure does some shitty things... and it is certainly going to influence my future computer/phone buying decisions...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Lazarus
by AdamW on Sun 20th Sep 2009 14:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by Lazarus"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

"I will say that I trust Google more than I trust Apple"

Hitler...Stalin...Stalin...Hitler...I always have trouble with these tricky questions ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Lazarus
by kaiwai on Sun 20th Sep 2009 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Lazarus"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"I will say that I trust Google more than I trust Apple"

Hitler...Stalin...Stalin...Hitler...I always have trouble with these tricky questions ;)


I'll take option (C) General Franco ;)

Reply Score: 2

business lie huh?
by re_re on Sun 20th Sep 2009 04:06 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

"we have to remember that we are dealing with companies here, and by definition, companies lie. By policy, companies will lie and deceit until their pants combust"

i'm sorry but i call bullshit, some companies lie sure, but to say that business in general are full of liars is way off base, the vast majority of business are honest for 1 simple reason ......... it keeps them in business.

if you think a business must be dishonest to get ahead you are sorely mistaken.

the same principals apply to small and large businesses so don't give me this song and dance about corrupt big business.

bad apples ... sure, but most are quite honest.

i am a business owner myself, and i really do not appreciate the generalization.

Reply Score: 7

RE: business lie huh?
by mieses on Sun 20th Sep 2009 06:35 UTC in reply to "business lie huh?"
mieses Member since:
2006-02-07

agreed. Apple has better design and less integrity than most companies.

Reply Score: 2

RE: business lie huh?
by HappyGod on Mon 21st Sep 2009 04:12 UTC in reply to "business lie huh?"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

"we have to remember that we are dealing with companies here, and by definition, companies lie. By policy, companies will lie and deceit until their pants combust"

i'm sorry but i call bullshit, some companies lie sure, but to say that business in general are full of liars is way off base, the vast majority of business are honest for 1 simple reason ......... it keeps them in business.

if you think a business must be dishonest to get ahead you are sorely mistaken.

the same principals apply to small and large businesses so don't give me this song and dance about corrupt big business.

bad apples ... sure, but most are quite honest.

i am a business owner myself, and i really do not appreciate the generalization.


The "vast majority" hey? (Muffled laughter).

The same principles do not apply to businesses and corporations for one simple reason; Corporations are legally bound to make their decisions based solely in the interests of their shareholders, businesses are not.

So, if that means sueing the country of Bolivia because they can't afford to pay you for their drinking water anymore cause you jacked up the cost by 60%, then so be it!

The mistake you are making is that you think that people are proactive in finding out what corporations do, or more importantly, you think that people actually care. In short, they aren't and they don't.

A little education:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y&feature=channel

Reply Score: 3

bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

Do Google, Apple, and AT&T lie? I think that's the point here and the answer to all 3 is "Yes!" so that we no longer have a question about that. Unlike some, I don't trust any of the 3 and before anyone says that it's the U.S.A. businesses that are the problem, corruption and under-the-table dealing happens everywhere.

I maintain that AT&T have a lot to do with this situation, despite what's been said. After all, this is a company that restricts the use of their mobile phones to call toll-free numbers to keep their customers from using the network bandwidth for hours at a time.

Also, Apple, like Steve Jobs, are control freaks. They want the experience controlled, so I don't doubt that they want the look-and-feel of the phone to be uncompromised.

Google, despite their constant beta status and open source projects are not a benevolent society as some people think. By providing applications are extremely useful but contort a device's UI and consistent appearance and behaviour, they have an opportunity to make people comfortable with their own UI thinking and push people toward products using their software.

Within reason, Apple should allow any application that doesn't cause anyone harm. I just believe that there are a lot of back-door/under-the-table dealings that cannot be expressed officially.

Reply Score: 2

Can't get excited about this... *yawn*
by memson on Sun 20th Sep 2009 11:02 UTC
memson
Member since:
2006-01-01

So this boils down to :

Google: "Apple's not being fair, waaa!! We didn't do nothing wrong - Apple did it."
Apple: "It wasn't us, we didn't do nothing.. Google is lying!!"

My reaction is, as always:

(1) A Google service wants my data. A Google service can't have it. I don't want Google to route my calls and listen in to my conversations.

(2) Apple uses GSM. The USA is pretty much CDMA and has a shoddy and underpowered GSM network, but the rest of the world pretty much uses GSM. I can't feel sorry for the US - you chose the wrong standard.

(3) Google voice is not available outside of the US. It seems unlikely that GoogleVoice will make it to Europe any time soon as every country has its own phone number format which means they would need a version for every country. It is so far away from my radar, I really couldn't give a fig about it.

To quote a famous British comedy sketch, "Cheque please..."

Reply Score: 3

mieses Member since:
2006-02-07

(1) Why would you care about Google seeing your data? If you live in the UK then you have no privacy anyways. You would trust Google less than some bureaucrats and secret police?

In the US, ATT is more likely to share your data with the state than Google is.

(2) T-Mobile has excellent coverage in the US and uses GSM. This point is not relevant to the topic, in any case.

(3) Also not relevant. Google voice isn't available in India either. Who cares?

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

(2) T-Mobile has excellent coverage in the US and uses GSM. This point is not relevant to the topic, in any case.


The AT&T network that is being rolled out is 3G WCDMA UMTS at 850Mhz and 2100Mhz for extra capacity in the metropolitan areas. Verizon is upgrading their network from CDMA which is a dead end technology to 4G which will work with the iPhone if unlocked in the future.

As for unlocking, is it possible to purchase an unlocked phone in New Zealand and take it to the US and use it?

Reply Score: 2

dcbw Member since:
2006-08-31

AT&T originally deployed HSDPA 3.6 in the 1900MHz PCS band. They are now rebanding their HSDPA service to the 850MHz "Cellular" band to get better in-building penetration and capacity mainly due to their large number of iPhone users.

They never had any 2100MHz spectrum. In the US 2100MHz is used for sat<->ground and other microwave stuff. The FCC had allocated 2100Mhz long before Europe chose 2100MHz for their UMTS 3G service.

The rebanding to 850MHz means that suddenly many of the AT&T 2G users lose coverage, because 1900MHz just doesn't go as far and that's where the 2G coverage now in markets like San Francisco and New York. AT&T basically screwed over the 2G users to help out the iPhone 3G[S].

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

1. what is Google's retention policy and how much political pressure does it take for them to open up the database? If you delete something, can you be sure that it is purges from Google's servers or is it simply not visible through the webapp?

2. GSM is broken and will only become more broken. It's not a technology to be proud of given how long the providers have known that it was broken; the average users are always the last to learn about these issues.

3. I agree that the limited distribution area of Google's voice service is not relevant. The issue is that it's been arbitrarily rejected for duplicating iPhone like features; just the way Skype duplicate's iPhone features (and baug bless Skype for it).

Reply Score: 2

dcbw Member since:
2006-08-31

T-Mobile doesn't have excellent coverage in the US. It has excellent coverage in *many* places, but nowhere near as many as Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T. They simply don't have licenses in as many areas as the other 3 do. But their network can be very good in the areas they do serve.

Their 3G network, while getting better, is still a joke anywhere outside city centers that they do choose to serve. They haven't built it out well enough yet to compete with AT&T, let alone Verizon and Sprint, who actually do happen to have so much more 3G coverage than AT&T that it's a joke.

http://www.cellularmaps.com/image/t-mo_3g_79.jpg

Compare that to:

http://www.cellularmaps.com/image/vzw_3g_t_compare_97.jpg

Reply Score: 1

memson Member since:
2006-01-01

(1) Because Google seems to want a finger in every pie - they are just as likely to abuse my data as any other company, but at least if I reduce the number of companies with access to my data, I limit the distribution of it.

(2) GSM is the US is a very poor second runner to CDMA, no matter who provides the service.

(3) Also not relevant. Google voice isn't available in India either. Who cares?


Google Voice is what caused this whole stink. The point it - it was rejected/held-up/disallowed for variuous reasons - both political and strategic in nature - that much is obvious. If it had been in the UK, I doubt we'd have this issue, as O2 are a lot more forgiving. I can't speak for other territiories, but for the UK the whole debate is extremely moot.

Reply Score: 2

Apple is on the Clock...
by juvenile4909 on Sun 20th Sep 2009 15:05 UTC
juvenile4909
Member since:
2007-08-04

Google pwned Apple on this one. At this point, if it's not rejected, then approve it. I read a previous comment where someone made fun of google complainging to FCC. Um, that would be valid if google would continue in the web of lies apple came up with. But Apple is predictable. Everyone knows this, google proved it.

Write letters, block our final statement, send it out.
Let them send theirs with backtalk and lies and truth twisted to go on forever.
Reveal the end all final statement when you have everyone attention.

Do it now or it will be done later when phones can VM, if not done by hack. Now i see why Palm didn't sit with Apple on the sync. Like it or not that app will be on that device.

Google is done. They said Apple rejected it. So if you didn't then approve it. What is there to talk about?

Reply Score: 4

Simple solution
by Eddyspeeder on Sun 20th Sep 2009 22:51 UTC
Eddyspeeder
Member since:
2006-05-10

Personally, I think the question who's right is pretty simple:

Even though it is known that Apple takes several weeks to approve/reject a submitted app, the decision that is then made is final. A rejected app can only be approved after reconsideration when the issues on which the rejection was made, are fully resolved.

Any iPhone App developer can tell you that Apple's procedure is:
1. Wait a few weeks;
2. Test the application in 48 hours' time;
3. Respond to the developer (approved/rejected).

There is no "4. consider any longer". As such, the claim that Apple is "still considering" the app makes no sense. It has never been done that way, so why should it be different? Then again, if they did choose to take longer than usual this time, why did they not voice that to Google in this way, thereby avoiding FCC involvement? Instead, Google themselves have indicated that the response (step 3 above) did not include substantial information on how to change the Google Voice App in order to obtain approval after a later reconsideration.

Reply Score: 3

Enough Apple crap
by cmost on Mon 21st Sep 2009 01:56 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I thought we were going to stop harping on the Apple crap! Does someone have an Axe to grind with Apple? Apparently so. Personally, I couldn't care less what Apple does as I don't use their hardware or software. It wouldn't break my heart to see these articles on page 2.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Enough Apple crap - well, yes
by jabbotts on Mon 21st Sep 2009 13:25 UTC in reply to "Enough Apple crap"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

A month a go now or more there was an article stating why they where going to focus on Apple. If Apple didn't provide so much negativity, there wouldn't be so much negative reports to harp on. This is being made aware of what the company is already doing rather than negative company policy resulting from this site's articles. If a tree falls in the woods and squishes a little bunny, the bunny still get's squished even if no one reports it.

Transparency of businesses is much better for the market and end user. You, directly or indirectly, benefit from this harping on Apple. Either the company reconsider some of it's policies and scummy actions or as a consumer, you make a more informed decision and hopefully promote more ethical business practices.

Reply Score: 2

Osnews point on this news
by Karitku on Mon 21st Sep 2009 19:41 UTC
Karitku
Member since:
2006-01-12

can be clearly expressed by words of Sören Kierkegaard: The daily press is evil principle of the modern world, and time will only serve to disclose this fact with greater and greater clearness. The capacity of the newspaper for degeneration is sophistically without limit, since it can always sink lower and lower in its choice of readers. At last it will stir up all those dregs of humanity which no state or government can control. -The Last Years: Journals 1853-55

Reply Score: 2