What a boring read. I'll go check perez hilton dot com now ;)

in the words of darth vader:

"WE DENY ALL" hhhh, hhhh, hhhh

"set the death star course to planet FC-Ceeee" hhhh, hhhh, hhh

i can see the suspicion though since AT&T is the only wireless carrier in the U.S to offer the Iphone

According to the usual standards I guess we should be consistent and call Apple and AT&T unamerican henceforth: https://services.google....rms/googlevoicemilitary/

Apple and AT&T un-American henceforth and forever

AT&T is the sole US carrier for the iphone isn't it

but I don't see why it should be blamed either

I think Apple is turning a bit hypocrity here regarding antitrust things...

Name one product Apple sells that comes even remotely close to violation any anti-trust regs.

Just one...

I love how people throw around these words they obviously have no understanding of...

Of course AT&T doesn't manage or approve apps from the App Store. All of AT&T's demands are spelled out in the contract. Also why does everyone always blame AT&T. It's not like AT&T is the only phone company Apple has to deal with.

AT&T also had nothing to do with collusion concerning the price of text messaging.

There was a very long pause before Skype made it to the iPhone app store, as well as some other apps that would have circumvented AT&T's service, as well as that of other providers. Perhaps, Apple are working alone in the "best interest" of the service providers with whom they have special agreements but I would think that they're getting a bit of coaching on just about any subject, since they're so new to the telecom market.

although i really don't believe them, lets take at&t's word completely at face value.

if this is the case, then you have proof positive that apple is selectively deciding which apps to offer and which apps to deny, even if they follow apple's licensing agreements to the character and to not violate the app store's terms of service, which is by every standard you can come up with, uncompetitive and monopolistic as hell.

i got an itouch to take advantage of my workplace's wifi connection and i got an iphone (secondhand from ebay) to take advantage of using the apps i had with my itouch in my car using the edge services t-mo had. those are the first and last products of apple that i will ever buy, and the reason for this is that despite the product features that apple's products have, and there are some damn good products that they have, its still an apple product and apple doesn't want me to use the product i bought how i want to use it.

i jailbroke both devices (actually re-jailbroke the phone because it wasn't done correctly) the very second that the ability to do so was made available. apple fanbois claim that apple designs great products when it can't design a product to run multiple programs in the background. just stating that "it's from apple, therefore it's AWESOME!!!!!1!!" has never swayed the pc crowd and just this minor involvement that i have with apple and their derisive attitude has turned me off of their products, or at least getting them secondhand so that apple doesn't get any more of my money.

"apple is selectively deciding which apps to offer and which apps to deny, even if they follow apple's licensing agreements to the character and to not violate the app store's terms of service, which is by every standard you can come up with, uncompetitive and monopolistic as hell."

...so Wal-Mart is anti-competitive and monopolistic for not offering Target's brands for sale?

Why is it that everyone is holding *this* store to such different standards than *any* other store in the world? Oh yeah...the entitled crowd wants it, so Apple *must* provide it...

Well, I suppose it *is* Apple's fault after all, these are the spoiled twats they cater to, after all...

*Well* said.

this analogy only works if:
a) there is an alternative to the app store on the iphone/touch. cydia does not qualify in this case because it requires a jailbroken device and doesn't come with the device by default.
b) wal-mart is the only store in the country.

what you have makes zero sense at all. the proper analogy would be that you walk into a walmart and they only offer their brand name products and/or one other name product and refuse to offer competitors for no reason at all.

you are genuinely missing the point. you are only thinking of competition between actual phones, that if people don't like what apple is doing they should get another phone. this is not that case. this is a situation of competition between developers of applications on the iphone. and this is why there is a certain standard applied to the apple app store. as long as the app does not violate their terms of service there is no reason at all for them to reject an app. because they are the only legal, legit, apple backed iphone/touch application store, if a developer wants to create and distribute their app legally with apple backing, they must go to through the app store process. if you developed a widget app and i developed a widget app and both apps did the same thing and both were accepted but bousozoku developed another widget app and that was rejected, that's anticompetitive. or if you and i both developed widget apps, and both were paid apps and mine got accepted and yours didn't for no reason at all. that's anticompetitive.

the entitled crowd does not want it as you say. the only thing the entitled crowd is entitled to is a fair and consistent manner in which apple approves its apps. and every person who owns an iphone/touch is a member of this entitled crowd.

i don't use google voice. i have no need for it. but i still can say that what apple did was wrong and not allowing another app that provided the same service despite having several dozen apps that do the same thing already in the app store is anticompetitive.

apple can easily solve this problem of the fcc breathing down their necks by allowing an official alternative to the app store. the monopoly is not in the device. the monopoly is the thing that provides applications for the device and the company that produces the device not allowing (officially) another thing to provide applications for the device.

Thats just a troll post and you know it..

The difference here is..

Your assertion that walmart is a monopoly because it wont carry target brands is not even remotely the right comparison..

How bout you compare peaches with peaches ehh?

Walmart doesn't refuse to carry name brand foods or jeans or electronics in favor of its "in house" brands.. They carry what the customers desire.. They do not tell Coke or Pepsi that they are duplicating Sam's Choice brand soda.. and therefore refuse to carry it.

The ONLY issue here with the app store is the convoluted approval process.. and the fact that Apple is being schizo with regards to what it will approve/not approve.

Back to the original topic, If walmart told coke to piss off and only carried pepsi products.. the government would be all over them for breaking rules, if they told Kraft or General Mills that they where not gonna carry any of their products because they "duplicated the house brands" they would be hammered by the government as well..

Its one thing to reserve the right to allow/not allow specific apps in your market, its another entirely to make those rules up as you go along

"If walmart told coke to piss off and only carried pepsi products.. the government would be all over them for breaking rules,"

BS?

What rules? Who is forcing Wal-Mart to carry anything they do not want to carry?

The iPhone is a product, the product comes with an interface to add content/apps to that product. The product and interface are one. If you do not like the interface or the product, there are about a million other phones out there with different interfaces.

Get a grip, people.

I don't agree. I think that's completely different. Apples public reason is that Google Voice offers similar functionality, but how exactly does that hurt their product? You get a separate number, a separate inbox and a separate voicemail, so what? You don't have to decide between one or the other, they both work fine together, no?
If you want something similar, then you could equate it more to allowing a Zune Marketplace on the Iphone, now THAT would be an easily distinguishable problem and warrant rejection.

I don't think the big deal is that they have rejected the app per se, I think the hubbub is about getting at the truth - most people suspect the real perpetrator here to be AT&T, and if it really is Apple, people want to know why, because 'offering similar functionality to the Iphone' just isn't a good enough reason.

Personally, I believe that it's their product, their store and they can do whatever the hell they want to do (other than say, force ads down people's throats). But we've seen where sometimes that just can't/shouldn't be the case (EU vs. MS).

Everyone is hung up on their reason.

Who cares what their reason is? They have a right to determine what their products can and cannot do. Simple as that. They are not a monopoly. They don't have to play by the same rule-book a monopoly would.

Dealing with Apple is like being in a communist country accept Apple doesn't kill people that don't agree with them.

You don't need to be a monopoly to follow rules. Or something change and I didn't get informed?

WHAT RULES??????

The one's the entitled crowd is making up as they go along??

I only created this account to respond to you PC_Tool.
You keep stating that this 'entitled' crowd. If google were to completely remove any references on their servers relating to apple, just delete all of it. Or perhaps, change it to go to NULL.
Would you have a problem with that or would you then claim they are being anticompetitive ?
How about for every apple term they put up disclaimer so people can know about their behavioral practices like removing apps at their own discretion for every search ?. They do it for other web sites and they would be, completely within their right to do everything you now state apple are free to do.

It's useless tspamme, you can't reason with him. ;)

Sure you can, Don...if you're capable of Reason.

tspamme: Is google a store? No? How does it relate? Does Google have the lion's share of the search market? Yes. Does Apple have the lion's share of the phone market? No. How does it relate?

So...no-one can answer the question, eh? What rules? Simple question, really.

What law requires that any store owner stock products they do not want to stock?

What law forces a non-monopoly to include or exclude functionality or products they do not want to?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

....didn't think so.

Their reasoning isn't the issue. The fact that someone (The FCC) is looking into trying to dictate to Apple what comes with their products. That's absurd no matter how you look at it. There are dozens of products you can buy that GV will work on....and having access to GV is *not* a god-given right...thus not something the government should be the least bit concerned about protecting.

Note: Wanting something really badly...even a great deal of people wanting something really badly, does not entitle them to it. There are laws protecting both consumers and corporations rights. In this case, the rights of the corporation to sell their products as they see fit, IMO, win out.

Why?

They are not a monopoly. The product in question is not a necessity. It does no harm to the rights of the individual or consumer. You do not have an innate right to get everything you desire, and if you want GV badly enough, there are many other ways to get it.

So AT&T denies they played any part in the rejection.

Google certainly didn't ask to have the app (and applications associated with the service) removed.

AT&T is basically telling developers that made applications built against the service and were removed that they can eat the costs of refunding users money on their own.

Google CEO left Apple board, granted this is probably a move that was coming anyways considering Chrome/Safari, iPhone/Android, but I am guessing the GV denial helped speed that decision up.

The damage being caused goes beyond just Google here. The denial or removal of apps is not unique to Google. It does however show that even if your Google you get nowhere. Probably doesn't give current or potential new developers the warm & fuzzy feeling.

Let's hope someone at Apple wakes up, if not, it's almost certain other platforms will crush this one with I am guessing within a 2 year mark as people's contracts come up for renewal.