“The Federal Communications Commission has launched an inquiry into why Apple Inc. rejected Google Inc.’s Internet-telephony software for the popular iPhone, another sign of the Obama administration’s stepped-up scrutiny of competitive practices in the technology industry,” Fawn Johnson and Amy Schatz report for The Wall Street Journal.
“In letters sent late Friday to the two companies and AT&T Inc., the FCC asked why Apple rejected the Google Voice application for the iPhone and removed related applications from its App Store. The letter also seeks information on how AT&T, the exclusive U.S. iPhone carrier, was consulted in the decision, if at all,” Johnson and Schatz report. “The FCC’s letter to Google asks for a description of the Google Voice application and whether Apple has approved any other Google applications for its store.”
Johnson and Schatz report, “Google Voice assigns a single phone number to a user’s cellphone, land line or Internet phone accounts. It also allows free text messaging and inexpensive international calls.”
“On Tuesday, Google said Apple wouldn’t let it distribute the software through its App Store, where iPhone users can download software. Apple has previously turned away Internet-telephony programs because they repeated key iPhone functions,” Johnson and Schatz report.
Johnson and Schatz report, “In a statement Friday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the FCC ‘has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment.’ The inquiry isn’t a formal investigation, but it is notable because the FCC hadn’t received a complaint about Apple’s rejection of Google Voice.”
Full article here.
The FCC’s letters (.pdf) to each company:
• Apple
• AT&T
• Google
Go FCC – much better use of their time than giving out fees for “profanity” like Janet Jackson’s boob.
It’ll be hard for the FCC to do less than they did in the past 8 years.
FCC probes Apple’s Beleaguered practices! *SMIRK*
Can someone clarify for me? Yes, GVM may ‘duplicate’ iPhone functions, but what is AT&T;upset about it for?
All phone calls to/from the phone are still charged to the phone’s minutes. If SMS is the issue, heavy users have the unlimited plan, so I’ve been at a loss why the carrier cares. What am I missing?
When you’re Google you can get immediate satisfaction from your government. But the little gets his hat handed to him.
Big government strikes again.
If I buy a Toyota car, but like the MS technology “sync” from the Ford car, should I sue or have an investigation launch to find out why MS is only teaming up with Ford? Same scenario.
My speculation is that there are two reasons for the app decisions that are being made: (1) Contractual obligations between Apple and AT&T that require protection of certain functions (such as telephony), and (2) Preemptive steps based on a fear of losing control of the integrated pipeline (this applies to Apple as well as to AT&T).
Apple has a preeminent position at this point with the iPhone. But I am hopeful that Apple has learned from the past and will respond appropriately to competition as it emerges (e.g., Android). Apple has expressed support of open source efforts in the past. I would hope that Apple would eventually extend more openness into its iPhone/iPod marketplace (as appropriate).
AT&T;cares because this app affects their bottom line. With practically free minutes out there, subscribers can elect the lowest price plan – thus lowereing revenue from minutes in general. Then you have the exorbitant cost of over-your-minute fees which will be another hit they take when you simply pull up the free google voice and make your calls. And with free texting, there goes the $30 they make off you for unlimited plan. So sure, I can completely see why they told Apple “hell no”.
@Tommy Boy;
You say that as if it’s a bad thing?
App Czar, bitch!
This is GREAT news. I cant count how many articles I have read ripping Apple for their fascist control of the App Store. There is no way that their crushing grip is going to last much longer. The FCC will take them down big time.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! A huge WTF? needs to be asked here. The FCC has launched an inquiry? I am not a developer for the iPhone, just a heavy freakin’ user & lover of it, but I believe it has an ‘Apple’ on the backside of it. Also, I believe, and someone correct me here if I am wrong, but if you are a developer, then you submit your app to the ‘Apple’ website for their approval to ‘Apple’ store for their device (the ‘Apple’ iPhone).
This is the problem with our government. Screw every last freakin’ congressman, senator speaker and yes, even you Obama for reaching into every last little minute detail of our lives.
It’s Apple’s phone, store & approval process. Even if it is a little screwy, it is still there’s.
Launching an inquiry, my ass. I am so sick of anything that reeks of the word ‘Federal’.
An yes, I am a fanboy, I’ve sipped the kool-aid and have nothing but Apple products in my home. But even if the FCC did something as asinine as this to the boys in Redmond, I would feel the same.
Government – get the hell out of our lives & businesses and let us do what has made this country great in the first place. You bunch of little bitches.
@MFCK
Errrr,,, OK…….. Just put the pen down and we can talk about this. (note: pen being mighter than sword but slightly less than gun and way less mighter than rocket launcher or large cannon.) Just a thought.
With all the other crap going on in this country, I would think that the FCC would have more important things to do than question Apples e v e r y move. And if they are going to stick their nose into this, I think a public reply is required when they decide they are happy with everything. You know, Apple did this, Att did this, its all within the rules. bla bla bla….
Not just skulk away after they are done.
Just a thought.
en
Hmmm maybe time to file a few freedom of information requests for the last several FCC investigations…..
To those that don’t fully understand the FCC, it’s their jobs!!! It’s not a fine, it’s not even a big deal, they are just asking what’s up? Is that a crime and as for the “Federal” thingy some of ya all have been bitching bout, well the last eight years the “Federal” has been out the f’ing door and look where that got us!
The government is for and of us, not against us if ya feel that way then do something bout it, stop ya bitching… damn internet, the monkey’s are throwing poop again, clean up in cell block A!
Nuff said.
I just don’t understand why anyone feels like they are entitled to having certain apps on their phones. You bought it before the app, so you aren’t losing anything. If you don’t like it, don’t buy another iPhone. The FCC should not be involved in this – it’s Apple’s product and AT&T;’s network, and Google Voice would ruin their entire business model.
I of course see this as more evidence of the sheer unadulterated cluelessness of the Obama Administration with regard to commerce.
If I create a really good tire, and I open stores to sell my tires, it is not my responsibility to cater to the needs of my competitors. This is akin to the FCC deciding to investigate why TheloniousMac Tires rejected the request of Goodyear to sell competitive tires in the TheloniousMac store.
It is, as someone put it, a waste of time and money. I should not be surprised as this administration has spent more in the first half of its first year than the combined costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and they are just getting started.
There is no Apple and AT&T;monopoly. Apple sells their own products and there are countless competing products to choose from. AT&T;sells their own products and again, there are any number of competing services to choose from.
If I want fricking Google Voice, I can go get a fricking Android phone. Nothing is stopping me. Google Voice is an outstanding service, but it’s not enough to make me switch. The Apple/AT&T;product/service is still ultimately superior.
Yet here come the leftist drones. “Oh, we don’t like this. We will investigate then ultimately legislate. Maybe toss in a new government agency while we’re at it.”
Prediction:
The Obama FCC will put an end to subsidized phones and exclusive agreements that are common in the United States, and we will say goodbye to $300 iPhones and wind up paying $700.
the FCC is exhibiting typical low IQ/knee jerk response by investigating the competitiveness of this issue. competition is not hurt by one company beating the pants off the rest. especially when it is done fairly and within the law. i submit that it would be real hard to pass a law that penalized smart people and gave advantage to dumb people. that would actually suppress competition. in reality that’s what this question is asking. should apple and at&t;be forced by the FCC to allow google voice. true, the data minutes are used to transmit the call, but “smart” people will adjust their data rates to compensate for such a ruling to compensate for the revenue lost to voice minutes.
actually, the apple and at&t;policy to prohibit parallel functions is less “smart” than one would expect. google voice may actually increase the dominance of the iphone and hurt android. that impact could potentially exceed by orders of magnitude the lost voice minutes. probably have an MIT grad modeling that in cupertino as we speak. regardless, this action by FCC is another example of wasted tax dollars and bureaucrats looking for something to do. they are not bad people, just don’t have any real work.
You can so clearly see who is in which political camp here, regardless of the actual merits of the issue. And it is just so funny…
The Federal Communications Commission has decided to look into an issue, because there is a hint of anti-competitive behaviour from a company that has a dominant position in a segment of the market that’s under FCC’s jurisdiction. As the article said, this is not even an investigation; it is just an INQUIRY. They’ve sent letters requiring explanations (anyone here actually read those letters before venting? — btw, Google letter is missing — link points to Apple again).
The inquiry is meant to provide proper understanding of the issue. Is AT&T precluding competitors from offering competing applications? Is Apple preventing competitors from providing apps and services that Apple offers, or plans offering in the future? Is this practice detrimental to consumers? And lastly, and most importantly, would any regulatory action enhance competition, or stifle innovation and reduce customer choice?
Good for the FCC. Apple has been going way overboard on their rejection of apps. 1) They refuse to preapprove apps or even give guidance as to whether a specific app is likely to be turned down because of its function. 2) They take a long time to approve apps, especially apps that are just updates. 3) They don’t explain in any detail why the disapprove things. There have been some very thoughtful pieces on how the process needs to be improved. For example, see this excellent article: http://www.iphoneworld.ca/iphone-editorials/2009/07/23/improving-the-iphone-app-store/. As Paul Kafasis has said, if Apple’s app store were AN App Store rather than THE App Store then it would be acceptable for it to be exclusionary. But so long as it remains the sole means of distributing iPhone apps, then the policy for determining which apps get in must be inclusive, rather than exclusive, at least if there is to be a robust, innovative developer community for the iPhone like there exists for the Mac. Read this from an app reviewer’s diary to see how ridiculous some of the rejections are: http://daringfireball.net/2009/05/diary_of_an_app_store_reviewer. Here’s another scathing critique: http://www.polarbearfarm.com/blog/?p=124. From my point of view, they have the right to sell what they want through the app store, but if a program doesn’t actually harm the iPhone they should sign it, so it can be loaded onto the phone, and allow outside app stores to sell it.
@rattiemouse,
You ignorant slut, Apple’s iTunes store is the property of Apple.
Then again, you’re probably a “do nothing” yourself, and support those who “do nothing” except ride on the coattails of others.
That said, I find it utterly hilarious that Apple throws their support behind a political ideology that despises them for being a successful business.
Lib Dems made no secret they ran on a platform of “us vs them”, and I hate to say it Apple (not really!), you supported those who think of you as “them.”
@mackle,
Unfortunately, it would NOT “be real hard to pass a law that penalized smart people and gave advantage to dumb people”!
That’s what government does routinely. Government is ALWAYS about politics, and day-to-day politics is about government helping a narrow interest at the expense of the public interest. The market losers–those who didn’t create products that customers want or greedy consumers who want something below the cost of providing it–go to government and claim they were treated unfairly somehow. Government then does something for the narrow interest at the expense of the general consumer who is not focusing on that particular issue. The small number of people who care a lot about Google Voice, and are unethical enough to think they should be able to FORCE Apple and ATT to provide something that they don’t want to provide, are going cost them money that the rest of us will have to pay for through higher rates.
Thanks a lot, brats!
GOOD!
Perhaps if Apple gets slapped down by the FCC on this, they will be more definitive about what they allow and won’t allow in the App Store. And if ATT is dragged down as well, this could be the beginning of the dumb, fat pipes we’re all craving.
AT&T;doesn’t want the free texting that there ripping people off for right now when it should be free with unlimited internet access.
Texting everywhere else in the world is free and it should be that way in the U.S. too.
I don’t understand why Apple rejected Google Voice. At some point their lack of communication with developers and indefensible rejections may hurt them… in the marketplace with customers and developers making other choices. But I have no idea why the FCC is involved. The government is absolutely clueless about technology, its use, and business implications.