Google has disclosed to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission that Apple Inc. earlier this year did indeed reject Google’s Google Voice for iPhone app for inclusion in Apple’s iTunes App Store.
Apple told the FCC last month that it had not rejected the Google Voice for iPhone app. Instead, Apple said it is still studying the app and hasn’t yet made a decision whether to approve or reject the app.
Google’s letter to the FCC states, in part:
Apple’s representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representatives indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replaces such functionality… The primary points of contact between the two companies were Alan Eustace, Google Senior Vice President of Engineering & Research, and Phil Schiller, Apple Senior Vice President of Worldwide Product Marketing. On July 7, Mr. Eustace and Mr. Schiller spoke over the phone. It was during this call that Mr. Schiller informed Mr. Eustace that Apple was rejecting the Google Voice application for the reasons described above.
Read:
• Google’s letter to the FCC (.pdf) here.
• Apple’s letter to the FCC here.
• AT&T’s letter to the FCC (.pdf) here.
MacDailyNews Take: Oh, goody, somebody’s lying! We wonder if it’s corporate policy for Apple and/or Google to tape such phone calls in anticipation of just such a discrepancy?
Google, in my opinion, is monopolising. If they were being good boys and girls, they would enhance the competition – in their view – by adding such functionality to their own phone software only, and then we’d see what’s good and customer-grabbing and what isn’t, and whether they have a case at all for it even needing to be anywhere.
It sounds like either company is on the same page. Let’s be frank, Apple doesn’t exactly tell the truth in black and white either…
I don’t completely trust any large corporation and I suspect they are all spinning the truth.
<b>
I’m guessing that it was more of Phil saying,”Your product duplicates some of our core functionality and that’s something we’d like to avoid…so it’s not looking likely we would approve it…but to be honest…our engineers are still studying it.”
Which Google took to mean that it was formally rejected. That’s not the case. Is there some federally mandated period of review for iphone apps? Is there a legal precedent for a “reasonable period of time” for approval?
No…there isn’t.
And Google does not have in it’s possession a formal rejection from Apple. They are just trying to turn up the heat by this kind of public disclosure.
Soon we’ll be hearing that Apple’s App Store is “too big to fail.”
“Luke, I think you’ll find that many of the truths we cling to depend largely on our point of view…..”
Apple could have saved themselves a WHOLE lot of trouble by just accepting that damn app, it’s not like it would have been tremendously popular anyway. Without all this publicity, it probably would have been no more popular than the Google Mobile app that lets you do safari searches via voice commands.
@Nuclear Kid:
I’d put it a little differently. Many of the truths we cling to depend largely on the extent of our stupidity.
Apple should be able to reject or accept ANY application submitted. The only person they should have to answer to is the public, and at times they have changed course due to public pressure.
They are an independent commercial business and they have the right to control what goes in the AppStore. If people don’t like it, they can complain to Apple or else boycott buying the iPhone and AppStore apps. Its as simple as that.
There are other cell phones, other computer makers, and other mobile platforms out there. Apple may have the best one, but that does not mean they should be under pressure to accept apps per the FCC.
Was it that it was informally “rejected” with that functionality in place, but could be accepted if changes are made to the app?
What’s the definition of “rejected”? We’ve seen plenty of apps that were initially rejected, get approved with changes.
After a little more thought…
So far this appears to be a case of ‘he said, he said’ from both parties so without tape of the converstation I am no more apt to belive Google than Apple.
Considering a Google officer sat on Apple’s board while quitely developing competing products and did not at some point recuse himself while taking copious amounts of free gear as compensation, I’d question almost ‘all’ of Google’s motives in this situation.
And finally, there is no legal mandate that Apple open it’s platform to this type of ‘competition’. The cell phone/smart phone market is overflowing with options and there is no legal basis for Apple to allow competitors into it’s space because they can’t provide a product anyone wants. So if they deny a voice app to duplicate features, they have every right to do that and Google is free to release it on Android, simple as that.
Piss on Google.
I have heard today that Ford & GM have rejected Google Brake Pads since they duplicate proven safe functionality.
m4a’s or it didn’t happen.
Thats what she said
“Apple should be able to reject or accept ANY application submitted. The only person they should have to answer to is the public, and at times they have changed course due to public pressure.”
Well, yes and no.
I would agree with you if there was competition. One of the nice things about Android’s distribution process is that if, for some reason, Google does not accept your app, you can still distribute it. Not so with the iPhone.
Imagine the following scenario: You own the only bookstore/magazine shop in a 3000 mile area. Through various agreements, you are the only person allowed to sell any book or magazine in this area. Now, it’s your bookshop and you can choose what books to carry or not carry. The problem is, there is no competition. In theory, no one else can come along and offer to carry books or magazines that you don’t. Their only option is to travel 3000 miles, an expensive proposition.
Yes, it’s your business. Yes, you can say, “I’m not carrying ‘Playboy’ because it objectifies women.” But when you control the market, you have to play by different rules, as Microsoft found out.
@Peter, Apple does not control the smart phone market, they just control the smart phone they sell. This is like telling Nintendo they have to open their platform to support Xbox games regardless of the impact on their business. Apple has every right to control any part of the iPhone experience, this is not a generic, open platform.
As someon who has had a million dollar project canned by a major console maker, I just can’t understand why people are focusing on Apple. They are no different than the console divisions of the big 3. Their box their decision.
Why should Apple not be afforded the same rights as them? And if Apple is taken to task for a rejection why aren’t the other 3?
Same deal with the AT&T;/ Apple partenrship. What is so different from the way the cell carriers have been working since they began?
And please spare me the bar room lawyer logic.
Who’s right or wrong here doesn’t matter. What matters is that the iPhone is getting a very bad word-of-mouth reputation as a walled garden under Nazi-like control. In reality there’s not much difference between the policies surrounding Android’s app store or MS’s Marketplace but Apple is the only one with a such a widely known bad reputation for protectionism. Apple can try to skirt the issue by saying it’s “still being studied” but the longer they drag it out the more it does to hurt the product image. Anything that hurts the iPhone’s image will likely help products running Android sell. Two of my workmates recently bought a BB Bold and an HTC Touch; both cited Apple’s walled garden as their main grievance and so chose devices (with less features, apps, etc, for the same price) to satisfy their moral perceptions.
Peter:
Bar room lawyer, are you free to buy another cell phone than the iPhone? Being popular does not make it a monopoly, people have other choices.
The Google and Apple war is now on! If Google wanted to play nice and partner with Apple, they would not have released this statement to the FCC. This is Google trowing down the gauntlet and I don’t think Steve Jobs is all that scared to get into with these guys.
Lies are the new truth.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Apple is dead wrong on this issue. Apple rejecting the Google App for being too similar to its phone app is like Microsoft refusing to allow Firefox to run on Windows because they already have IE. Just because you create a platform doesn’t mean you should have absolute control over what runs on it. Although it may be true that Apple wants to have control to ensure a uniform user experience, they don’t need to be absolute about it. For example they could allow any app to run on the iPhone and only apps that they approve would be in the app store. If a user decides to install an app outside the store, they do so at their own risk.
You know… MDN, maybe I should have contacted you directly regarding your grammar and spelling mistakes, but I didn’t. I chose to publicly announce that you introduced the mistakes since you are so fond of being a grammar nazi yourself.
And you didn’t have to delete my post either… you could probably have edited it to say “… thanks, fixed -MDN”.
You fixed one mistake, but missed the other. I’ll let YOU find it.
HazMatt
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.”
I sure hope so: We never tire of hearing it.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />