I know that this is probably not very comme il fait to say on HN, but really, I don't see what all the righteous indignation at AT&T / Apple is about.
You signed up for a highly proprietary and controlled walled garden when you got an iPhone. I did too. When you ran into some limitations you didn't like, you jailbroke it and loaded some things Apple and/or AT&T didn't want you to load.
If you don't like this whole paradigm, why get an iPhone? Why not get an Android or something else? For that matter, why does Google bother releasing an iPhone app; why not build the Android into a handset that is tightly coupled/integrated with Google Voice? Seems like that would be a fine marketing coup for the former.
I'm just not sure what there is to whine about here. Of course enhanced voice application services aren't going to be allowed on the phone because they are perceived as encroaching on possible or actual carrier revenue streams. Of course you can't put applications on it that make a "dumb pipe" of the carrier's data network in order to deliver voice. If you don't like this set of circumstances, pursue a solution by competitive means, not legislating it; vote with your feet and quit buying iPhones until the exclusive distribution contract with AT&T expires, and thusly encourage Apple to diversify its retail blend to include other network operators with more liberal approaches.
Really - what, do you expect that a de facto contractually sanctioned monopoly (AT&T) is going to act in the spirit of the public welfare or consumer choice when it perceives a conflict of interest? Seriously?
Neither the courts nor the FCC should be looking at this. Consumers just need to take their wallet elsewhere.
EDIT: I very much concur with the poster above who speculated that AT&T's 3G network doesn't have the bandwidth to handle a large amount of relatively constant (at a certain baseline) voice traffic generated by something as popular as GV. Anybody who deals with mobile issues routinely can tell you that AT&T's 3G network is positively the worst in the land, and oversubscription in many MSAs is unbearably high. You want 3G bandwidth, go with Sprint, or maybe T-Mobile.
About your edit footnote, what do you mean by GV voice traffic? GV is not a VOIP solution, it calls your phone which uses your subscription minutes. Usage might increase a bit because international rates are lower, but I fail to see how that could overload AT&T's bandwidth.
I was under the impression that the GV client also provides some degree of VoIP client functionality.
It would be hard to see what is controversial about this proposal if that weren't present. What, is AT&T complaining about more subscription minutes being used?
AT&T is freaked the fuck out because your Google Voice number is actually portable to any carrier, completely dynamically, in perpetuity.
Number portability in the US as it is now only works if your new billing address is in the same zip code as your old number, and usually doesn't work at all when you're trying to port out of a VoIP provider or in to a PoTS line.
Really? I ported an Atlanta number from T-Mobile to Sprint without a single problem here in Seattle. They did ask me for an Atlanta zip code during the process, but it never came up as an issue.
Phone number portability (one carrier to another) is mandated by law. They gave you no problems because they mustn't. GV style portability (a virtual number that works with any carrier) enjoys no such privilege, so they can, and in Apple/AT&T's case, have, blocked it.
It's not "a virtual number that works with any carrier." I can assure you that the number is (1) natively homed or (2) ported - to a particular physical, facilities-based carrier (generally a CLEC) at any time. In a lot of places, Google Voice is using bandwidth.com's new CLEC license holdings (after they stopped being a pure Level3 reseller), and probably the usual national-level multibillion dollar folks that are interconnected to everyone, everywhere and have a lot of direct end-office trunking: Global Crossing, XO, Level3, etc.
For example, here in Atlanta, my friend has a Google Voice number out of 404-939. If you take a look at the pooling and/or NANPA assignment information for that block, you'll find it's pooled and held by bandwidth.com's new CLEC:
No, Apple / AT&T is concern about competition and letting their customers easily move between carriers, as GV permits a single portable phone number, messaging, etc.
I think the uproar is not so much about Apple banning aplications willy nilly, it is more about them simultaneously trying to portray an image (vs Microsoft, specifically) of being holier than thou, but at the same time REFUSING to state what applications are allowed and what are not. As it is, they have thousands of freelance programmers working their asses off developing awesome apps....they take the good ones, and anything that threatens their platform, the quash, and refuse to say why.
I think people want some honesty, especially from a company that uses slogans like "Think Different".
...and anything that threatens their platform, the quash, and refuse to say why
Isn't the answer already contained in your question? The real situation is that developers know that they are walking a fine line with applications that "threaten their platform". No big surprise there.
I get a feeling that banning Google Voice was an attempt to be more consistent, as some have blamed Apple for cronyism in relation to Google.
You signed up for a highly proprietary and controlled walled garden when you got an iPhone. I did too. When you ran into some limitations you didn't like, you jailbroke it and loaded some things Apple and/or AT&T didn't want you to load.
If you don't like this whole paradigm, why get an iPhone? Why not get an Android or something else? For that matter, why does Google bother releasing an iPhone app; why not build the Android into a handset that is tightly coupled/integrated with Google Voice? Seems like that would be a fine marketing coup for the former.
I'm just not sure what there is to whine about here. Of course enhanced voice application services aren't going to be allowed on the phone because they are perceived as encroaching on possible or actual carrier revenue streams. Of course you can't put applications on it that make a "dumb pipe" of the carrier's data network in order to deliver voice. If you don't like this set of circumstances, pursue a solution by competitive means, not legislating it; vote with your feet and quit buying iPhones until the exclusive distribution contract with AT&T expires, and thusly encourage Apple to diversify its retail blend to include other network operators with more liberal approaches.
Really - what, do you expect that a de facto contractually sanctioned monopoly (AT&T) is going to act in the spirit of the public welfare or consumer choice when it perceives a conflict of interest? Seriously?
Neither the courts nor the FCC should be looking at this. Consumers just need to take their wallet elsewhere.
EDIT: I very much concur with the poster above who speculated that AT&T's 3G network doesn't have the bandwidth to handle a large amount of relatively constant (at a certain baseline) voice traffic generated by something as popular as GV. Anybody who deals with mobile issues routinely can tell you that AT&T's 3G network is positively the worst in the land, and oversubscription in many MSAs is unbearably high. You want 3G bandwidth, go with Sprint, or maybe T-Mobile.