"Strikes back?" I don't think anybody at Apple is going to be upset by this, given that they publicly recommended it: Google is of course free to provide Google Voice on the iPhone as a web application through Apple’s Safari browser, just as they do for desktop PCs, or to provide its “Google-branded” user experience on other phones, including Android-based phones, and let consumers make their choices. -- http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/
I think Google is "striking back" in the sense that it's planting the Google Voice 'seed' while Apple probably wants to keep it off the iPhone entirely. If each company had an internal monologue, I think it would go something like this:
Apple: "We don't want Google Voice on the iPhone, period. But we'll publicly tell Google they're fine to put it on as a handicapped web app, because we couldn't stop that anyway, and it makes us look like we don't have anything against it. But we do. We are worried that Google will convert the iPhone into a shell for its own products, which is why we're talking to other search engines and are (probably) building our own Maps app."
Google: "Fine. We'll build a web app, and it will be sort of shitty. But we'll keep updating it with the latest HTML5 tricks and make it pretty damn good for a web app — far better than most other companies could do anyway. We're going to release Google Voice to the public later this year, and iPhone users will be able to try it for themselves with the web app. When they find out that the experience would be even better if Apple would approve our native app, maybe we'll see a grassroots movement. Maybe not. Either way, we're keeping our best native apps on Android."
To anyone who thinks that Apple is worried about the user experience and reproducing core functionality, that's all misdirection. There are plenty of applications that similarly reproduce some of the iPhone's core functionality. There are a few apps that do EXACTLY what Google Voice does, but are targeted at a different market. Apple is trying to keep its control over the iPhone for competitive reasons, not because they're worried about user confusion.
Neither Apple nor Google will ever comment about this on the record.
They both did, in response to an FCC inquiry. Your theory depends on both companies not just lying but lying to the government and lying to the government in a very peculiar way that doesn't actually give either of them any kind of advantage over telling the truth.
Go back and read Apple's response to the FCC. It may not have any outright lies, but there's plenty of stuff in there that is questionable. They say some things that are factually incorrect about the way Google Voice works, and they try to claim that they don't fully understand the service. If you buy that, so be it. I don't.
There are countless apps on the App Store that “duplicate” the iPhone’s functionality in some form, and the notion that users might get confused about the apps is ridiculous too — after all, users have to manually install these apps.
This is not very insightful. Apple obviously did not reject the application based on what is shares in common with applications it didn't reject. So why not actually examine the differences? Moreover, why not examine the differences as referenced by Apple concerning their own actions?
For instance, Apple's claim that: "The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail."
Is this true? Are there other, accepted applications that do this? Does this constitute a duplication of functionality that may confuse users?
TechCrunch doesn't appear to have even attempted to answer any of these questions.
Google voice only handles your voicemail if you explicitly set it up through the google voice settings interface. It involves dialing a special number from your phone that google gives you. And if I recall correctly Mike Arrington did explain this in at least one of the posts covering the whole fiasco.
We also wrote quite a few other stories about the situation that you should be able to pull up using the Google query below. For more on applications that are similar to Google Voice, check out the stories on Line2.
In that case I don't really understand your point. There are lots of ways to send messages other than through Apple's visual voicemail if you want to set them up. Yes it's true that you can have Google Voice handle your voicemail for you if you go through a set of steps to set it up.
I don't own an iphone, but I imagine there is a native email application that Apple wrote. Let's say you have mac mail, and are popping your mail to your phone. I also imagine there are plenty of other email clients, which notably Apple has not rejected. If you then download and configure one of these other clients to pop your email is that duplicating a native function of the phone? Is it confusing? I argue no, and apparently Apple agrees since said apps certainly exist in the App Store.
Choosing to consume your data in a way other than Apple intended seems to be the problem with Google Voice. The argument of confusion by duplicating functionality is patronizing to users and pretty thin.
They say some things that are factually incorrect...
Then cite the facts, as said before. Denigrating people based on what they "buy" (when your argument hinges on "reading between the lines") is not convincing. You may be right, but at this rate I'll never know, because you have a long way to go between connecting "questionable" to the elaborate intrigue you described before. That is what I don't buy, because I honestly don't see any fact-grounded reason why the simple explanation isn't true, and you haven't offered any.
It'd be a waste of time for both of us to try and shoot holes in each others' speculations, because it just leads to more and more speculation, e.g. if Apple didn't want to permit things like Google Voice even as a web app why did they develop the JavaScript hooks it depends on? There is no response to that sort of question doesn't spawn more questions than it answers.
Typical itworld bait headline :( (they haven't - it's a web app)
EDIT: this is the second time in the last couple of days an itworld article made it to the front page. Im guessing it is because of new-er HN users? FYI itworld is usually content-less and mundane (through to outright baiting) :) best to hunt for another source if the story seems interesting.
(abennet also IMO pushes the "it's ok to self post" boundary a bit too far... but that's another issue)
Steve Jobs is finally getting what he wanted from developers back when the iPhone was released: web apps being developed instead of native applications.
Developers love the SDK, web apps are obviously-less capable than native applications, but there's no approval process for web apps. That's what this has come down to: it doesn't matter how good the platform is if you can't distribute.
The app store, like the music store, makes a little over breakeven. All Jobs really cares about is selling more phones -- the rest is just to support this primary goal.
Right, but that's exactly my point. The native apps are fueling sales of the phone. The Apple ads don't say "10,000,000 web apps available online," they say "100,000 apps available in the app store." So I'm not seeing how Steve Jobs can possibly have wanted developers to create web apps all along?
He's referring to the fact that when the iPhone was released, Jobs strongly played down the importance of a native SDK and played up the idea of making iPhone-centric webapps. It was some months before they released the native SDK.
This is what I meant. Web apps are becoming important again not because there's no SDK but because the SDK is effectively unusable for some applications.
I literally just released my own version last night. http://googlevoicer.com Google's older version was horrible. Their newer version is nicer, but still very slow because of all the page loading. To make it better they should cache the whole application in the browser.
If I visit your site on my laptop/desktop, I should get an idea of what your service looks like/offers. I don't want to have to wait until I pull it up on my iPhone/iTouch.
Two notes- 1, your app doesn't set a default bookmark name, defaulting to "Untitled"; 2, I don't really feel comfortable handing over my google username/password to you- No offense intended, it's just bad policy. Can you do this via OAuth?
Thanks for the tips! The username and password is stored on your phone via sqlite, which is then sent to my server where I keep an open connection between with google voice, I don't store the actual username and password anywhere. I understand your concern about credentials, I was thinking about releasing the code to my server.
The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. -- http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/
This kind of speculation is unnecessary. There's been plenty written on this subject, including statements from Google, Apple and AT&T. The fact of the matter is that Apple thinks GV will confuse iPhone owners because it replaces the phone's native dialing functionality, among other things. It's similar to the reasons Apple gave for rejecting Google Latitude (i.e. replacing native functionality), although that rejection was a lot more bogus.
So it's not bad for Apple, only bad for the Apple-AT&T relationship? Apple might as well not care and happily approve the app if such terms didn't exist?
No, Apple seems to think it's bad for Apple. If you read the companies' statements to the FCC it's clear that AT&T was not involved and that it was purely Apple's decision to reject the GV app.
"Apple might as well not care and happily approve the app if such terms didn't exist?"
Likely so. Note that there is a Skype app for the iPhone but it is restricted such that it will only make voice calls through wifi. It's rumored that AT&T has been opposed to VoIP traffic over its 3G data network though it has just recently finished work necessary to make such things feasible and may reverse its earlier decisions (paving the way for full-featured skype and google voice iPhone apps).
But GV isn't a VoIP service. So AT&T opening up its 3G network to VoIP traffic will have no effect on Apple's decision to accept or reject a GV app, and it can't have played any part in the original rejection.
How is Google Voice not VoIP? When one uses Google Voice one's voice is transmitted over an IP network, that seems to be the very definition of VoIP. Attempting to claim otherwise would seem to be to play semantic games.
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Your voice is not transmitted over an IP network with Google Voice. That's why it's not VoIP. There are no semantic games involved. Since I feel like I've beat this to death a few times before, I'll just point you to this: http://www.itworld.com/print/75774.
And yes the Wikipedia entry for Google Voice is mistaken. I should probably fix that for them...
I love it when big players start throwing competitive punches, and we're set to win big from Google attacking such a monopolistic clique as the cellular network industry. I suppose this also means that Google Voice is nearly ready for a public release.
Still not a data-only enabler -- greets the user with a "what is the number of this phone" dialog on first use. Guess I shouldn't expect 100% free outgoing from Google; they probably don't stand to make money on that.
Yes, GV itself is not a data only enabler. We must wait for Google to integrate the recently acquired Gizmo5 for that. I expect Google to roll out a seamless data only mobile service integrating GV and Gizmo5 with plans from T-mobile by the end of the year, and hopefully during the summer.
A data-only phone is a pipe dream. VoIPo3G sucks (http://gigaom.com/2010/01/19/iphone-the-lack-of-voice-over-3...) and uses more bandwidth than a circuit-switched call. Data is temporarily priced lower than voice minutes, but you can expect this to change if VoIP becomes popular. The carriers will have their ARPU; it's just a question of how they get it out of you.
I can't imagine that this will satisfy those of us who have become accustomed to the tight integration of GV with Android. But it is good to see Google working to provide some support for iPhone owners.
Not really. What lt describes basically creates a shortcut on the springboard, but Mobile Safari accepts specific meta definition that announces the current page as stand-alone so that when launched from the springboard, it is not really launching Safari but just a site-specific browser, without the status bar at the top, nor the toolbar at the bottom.
Unfortunately, it has to be written in the page rather than you deciding what you want to do when adding it to the springboard. It's the case with all Google products except Google Talk strangely and I find that's too bad…
I was just writing a page with that same explanation! Now, to you all the women, money and success…
It did seem to work for most apps I tried too. (Gmail, Voice, Tasks) There's also a meta tag to select the kind of status bar you want (gray, black or translucent) but it seems that it's dismissed if the page doesn't really have it.
