I like where he points out that a source gave him info that was apparently bullshit and he says that 'Any future information from this source will be noted accordingly.'
I agree, this sort of accountability is one of the reasons that I enjoy following Gruber's writing, and think that the "fanboy" label given to him by some detractors is not deserved.
Gruber makes many good choices, this being one of them. But his writing is overwhelmingly pro-Apple. You can call it being a fanboy or not, it's up to you.
Separately, I'd probably be as inclined to believe the source as I would Apple's public response.
> I'd probably be as inclined to believe the source as I would Apple's public response.
In turn, I say this: You are given two statements: One is a written and formal statement from Apple to the FCC. It's on record. If information comes to light in the future that contradicts this statement all h*ll will break loose for the company.
The other is from Gruber claiming that some anonymous person claimed something to the contrary of Apple's statement.
Given the two, you are inclined to believe someone who Gruber claims claims something. Where do you think you fit on a continuum from pro-Apple to neutral to anti-Apple?
Ah, the general case. I can go along with this, I lean that way by nature as well. That being said, I recognize a flaw in my argument: I'm presenting a false dichotomy. In a case like this it's also quite acceptable to disbelieve Apple and the "little birdie."
No, I don't think that you can say that Gruber is pro-Apple. It's more accurate to say that he is pro Apple products. Apple the company cops a fair bit of criticism from him, including on subjects such as the App Store, DRM, pricing etc, but Gruber explains in detail exactly why he is so enamoured by they products.
Well, someone did make a comment under the other post that Apple answer didn't preclude the possibility that AT&T called up Apple and said, "Don't approve the Google Voice App."
I'm curious why none of the sites publishing Apple's response have called out the obvious bullshit in their statement.
"alters the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality"
"The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail [snip]... disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub, replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature"
Google Voice does NOT replace or disable anything on the iPhone, it simply offers users the choice of an alternative service. Choice is good.
For my money, the reason Apple are preventing apps that would challenge AT&T or potentially strain their network is to ensure the iPhone remains an attractive prospect for teleco's for when AT&T's current deal expires.
That’s a lot of apps. 8,500 per week with 40 reviewers works out to 212 apps per reviewer per week — about 40 per day.
It's even worse than that, quoting the Apple text:
There are more than 40 full-time trained reviewers, and at least two different reviewers study each application so that the review process is applied uniformly.
So yes, more than 40 per day for a first review. On top of that they have to do at least another 40 for a second review.
It certainly helps to explain the seeming arbitrariness of some decisions. In fact, I'm inclined to think that the reviewers must be a heroic bunch not to screw up more than they do!
Plain insane, indeed. I have no idea how they even pull that off. I feel sorry for their families. I really hope Apple hires and trains about another 200 of these reviewers.
Is Apple developing a competitor to Google Voice? I'm thinking of it from the perspective of Apple looking ahead towards carrier in-exclusistivity and seeing some obvious benefit to owning the customer and making the carrier irrelevant. Apple's claim of duplicate functionality would make a lot more sense in this context.
I don't think Apple is developing a competitor to Google Voice -- which is probably part of the problem. If they did build a competitor, it really wouldn't matter. Apple could do it better and more seamlessly.
However, what's really happening is that Apple is seeing the writing on the wall. A lot of the core functionality of the phone, like Maps and search, are already provided by Google. Once you add in Google Voice with call management, voicemail, and SMS then suddenly it's not really Apple's phone anymore -- it's Google's.
Perhaps they are, perhaps its closer to what they claim. Hard to say. But that part should not matter much. I expect the FCC to protect the consumer in this case. I expect limits on the stranglehold a company (Apple or ATT) can have on the consumer that purchases product or service from a device vendor or carrier.
Neutrality and independence enable competition. I want an FCC that embraces these concepts as it should be better for the entire economy, not just a few companies.
good overview. Hopefully, the FCC will decide that the iPhone belongs to the user once its purchased and not Apple. If the user decides to change the user experience or even brick their device, that's their choice.
It already is the user's choice. What you seem to want is for it to become Apple's responsibility to provide support for anything a user wants to do, which is another thing entirely.
There is outstanding ambiguity in DMCA and related laws which are used to great effect by companies like Apple. Is it illegal to hack your iPhone? I think not, but one reason I believe Apple has not sued over this yet is they get benefit from not having a clear ruling on the issue.
> There is outstanding ambiguity in DMCA and related laws
Sorry, I'm a Canadian. That being said, (a) You folks have this crazy idea that your laws reach around the world so that if someone breaks, say, the password protection for a document format in Russia he should be arrested when he sets foot on American soil, and (b) You folks have been putting a LOT of pressure on our government to bring our laws into compliance with whatever your media companies desire.
EFF is pushing the Copyright Office to issue an exemption for jailbreaking iPhones and extend the exemption for breaking a SIM lock. (One good reason to send them some money.)
As it stands now, it probably is illegal to jailbreak a phone. Apple certainly asserts that it is.
What ambiguity? It isn't illegal to hack your phone. It is illegal to modify and distribute someone else's copyrighted software to do so, though, and that is the only thing that Apple has taken any legal action against.
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that
effectively controls access to a work protected under
this title.
The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent DRM with very few exceptions. It doesn't matter if it's for your own personal use. Doesn't even matter if you actually pirate any software. Simply breaking the locks is illegal.
In fact, it makes it illegal to simply create or traffic tools that could be used to circumvent DRM (i.e. modchips, but that could describe a lot of tools)
I didn't say anything about DRM. Why do you need to break DRM to hack a phone? To access and modify the copyrighted contents. i.e. "work protected under this title". This was covered to death in the last round of DMCA rulemaking.
The fact is that you don't have the right to infringe on Apple's copyright, but all existing jailbreak software does exactly that. If you were to hack your phone without infringing on Apple's copyright, they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, because as I said, hacking your phone is not illegal.
yep, thanks. And when I refereed to ambiguity, I was being very kind to the laws and industry that support these aspects of the DMCA. I think if our courts upheld the DMCA to throw a person in jail for hacking their own iPhone to get around Apple's App Store we would see a revolt (against the products and the laws). So they don't go after it as they want the threat to remain.
uh no, I did not say anything of the sort. Go read any software license over the last 30 years. Almost all say they offer no warranty. If Apple has a bug in their core software, are they liable for support or loss of data? I'm sure they declare they do not: use at your own risk!!!
Bottom line is its my device, I can install whatever software I please and Apple restricting downloads from their own store, "pay our 30% rake", is bullshit. I hope the FCC tears them a new one.
"Apple restricting downloads from their own store, "pay our 30% rake", is bullshit."
So you feel you have a right to force Apple to distribute your software, collect payments for it and pass them on to you, and that they should have no say in whether to provide that service or charge you for it?
Again: you have the right to do what you please. But that doesn't extend to forcing Apple to offer you services they don't want to offer.
I agree with jhancock. I do not want to force Apple into distributing my software. I just want Apple to stop actively preventing me from distributing my software (through my own resources), which is what it is doing with the App store.
If Apple locked down desktop OS X in the same way it has locked down the iPhone, I would switch to desktop linux in a heartbeat.
I did not say Apple should distribute 3rd party software. I said they were restricting downloads. They have become the gatekeeper to software installs on the iPhone. You have to illegally hack your device to get around this.
"Based on Apple’s response, it seems my “devil’s advocate” hunch in my initial piece on this was pretty close to the mark: that it’s about Apple’s competitive relationship with Google. Put another way, Apple does not want to make it easy or seamless for iPhone users to use Google’s phone service."
I usually like Gruber's writing, but this statement makes a huge jump that really has no basis. Apple spends many paragraphs of its letter explaining that they denied the app because it alters the user experience. I believe what they explained is a more likely cause than some conspiracy by Apple to upset Google's dominance of the phone service.
But not really. The way that they describe it is misleading -- tending to lead the user to believe that Google's app was replacing parts of the UI.
This is how the 'user experience' has changed with Google Voice:
* People call your 'google voice' number rather than you cellphone's phone number
* Calls to your google voice number are forwarded to your cellphone
* Voicemails left at your Google Voice number are stored in your Google Voice account (rather than on your AT&T voicemail at your cellphone's number)
The problem with Apple complaining about the 'changed user experience' is that people signing up for Google Voice and getting the Google Voice app are making a conscious choice to modify their user experience in such a way. It's not like joe-sixpack stumbles blindly into GoogleVoice by accidentally downloading the app from the AppStore.
Well also outgoing calls can (optionally) be routed through Google Voice. On my G1 with Google Voice, I have it set to ask me for each number I dial whether I want to use T-Mobile or Google Voice for the call.
I think it is fair to say that it alters the user experience of one of the core features (i.e. dialing a number). I just don't think that should be grounds for rejecting an app.
