The internet has made this world real close. Our conversance and disagreement now needs just few ‘type-ins’ and ‘clicks’ to be put across. As blogs, forum postings, articles and comments, today, personal deductions, however gross, irrelevant or unnecessary they are, can be put across easily for the others to know.

I just stumbled upon one news on the Apple’s decision to exclude Google Voice from its list of iPhone applications. Scoffers have started to jibe on the decision by drawing parallel to the iPhone creator’s decision of including ‘iWet T-s***’ - a PG-13 rated game developed by Synapse Communications (an Indian iPhone application development major - http://www.synapse.co.in/clients/ip_iwet.shtml) in the list of its applications.

Google Voice, no doubt, is a useful application. Rejection of the same would upset many iPhone, and all Google, fans. But the way the scathing remarks have been directed to Apple, I doubt on the (seemingly) ‘purist’s’ credentials. They sound more like Apple’s diehard anti, than ones anyway near to being seekers of an adult /sex theme-free list of iPhone applications.

If Apple has approved iWet, it also did it with a word of caution by rating the same with PG 13. It now entirely remains in the discretion of user to download the application.

Perhaps days of unnecessary fistfights and derisions against adult theme-oriented applications/websites are over. In the web world, where access to everything interesting is just a click away, we need to be more ingenious in setting our priorities and open towards abiding holistic regulations.

Opera confirmed that they didn't submit Opera Mini to Apple. How could Apple reject what they never saw?

Trend Micro provides a web browser with an anti-phishing orientation, but it's still a web browser and competes with Safari.

Google Voice was likely rejected since it was providing a way around AT&T's business, even though Skype provides similar but expanded functionality.

my iphone is running off of a t-mobile sim card.

what was this about a way around at&t's business again...? the apple store is selling iphones with no contract, meaning for use with any sim card. your argument is undercut right there.

and keep in mind, at&t is the exclusive company in the united states for the iphone for right now. they are not in other countries across the world. and the vast majority of these apps are available from the app store in every country, and if you look hard enough you can get access to every app.

so tell me, how does someone in another country downloading the google voice app affect at&t's business?

and by the way, i jailbroke both of my devices the second there was a way and the second i figured out how to do it. if opera releases opera mini on a cydia repo, i'm on that man in a second.

Try getting some perspective, ctk...

The number of uncontracted phones is virtually *nothing*. The phones sold in other countries? locked to Rogers, or whatever...all likely with the same contracts and barred functionality.

It's funny, you know? It almost looks as though you think Apple *supports* jail-breaking. They don't. You know that, right?

Even the new iPhones with no contract are bound to AT&T. They're just really expensive without the subsidy, but AT&T is happy to sell them that way because they're not putting anything into them. The phones aren't sold unlocked and can't be used directly with T-Mobile, but who would want to do that anyway since T-Mobile doesn't have much of a 3G data network in the U.S.A.?

In various countries, Apple still have exclusive deals, though like France, those deals are being torn apart and the profit-sharing is going away. While AT&T is only in the U.S.A., those companies with the exclusive deals would rather that the outbound calls be tied to their network and generate revenue for them. AT&T is likely the biggest of the carriers since the U.S.A. is rather larger than most countries and it's a good example of where Apple's focus often is.

__ I imagine Apple will face some court cases pretty soon for this kind of "selective" behavior. I love Apple products but I think they sometimes go to far to protect their turf.

Oh where oh where would we all be without the Apple Gods watching over us and hexing all applications deemed foul and evil?? Surely we child like iphone borrowers (we really don't own them) need Apple's protection from evil software developers.
Oh,I forgot. We'd be using Windows Mobile (and multi-tasking, and background operation, and cut & paste that makes sense, and Excel, and Word, and Powerpoint, and file portability, and memory that can accessed, and, and, and, and, and.....)
Ah, we must continue to suffer the arrogance of the Mother Company.
Personally,my iphone is going in the shi++er as soon as the contract runs out. Nothing more than a glamorous toy that is handcuffed in the productivity (real) world.

OK, folks...

Prior to today, had someone compiled a list of apps and functionality Apple would probably *not* allow on the iPhone....don't you think this would have been right at the top??

Why this surprises anyone, much less enrages them, is beyond me. This is an *obvious* ban...one of those "Duh?" moments.

Apple and AT&T made a deal to get you the iPhone for $99, provided you use AT&T.

Is it any shock to anyone then that they actually...I dunno...expect you to use AT&T???

Apple definitely has agreements with AT&T specifically barring this sort of thing.

Did you guys actually believe Apple would basically let you scam AT&T?? Seriously? Are you *that* dense?

Are we reading the same posts? I'm reading these posts and nobody is "enraged" for specifically the google app being blocked...but the entire "duplicate functionality" excuse apple is giving for apps in general. By duplicate functionality I'm pretty sure they mean "if you try to sell an app that competes with one of our apps we will reject it". They're not rejecting apps that have similar functionality as other apps, just ones that compete with their own. I can't imagine what would happen if MS tried something like that...

So what does this app duplicate?

Oh, right AT&T's service.

???

All I see here is a lot of whining over a device that has been locked-in since it's inception, as though all of these folks just realized what that meant....

BTW: regarding MS: MSFT is a monopoly, Apple is not... ;)

I'm genuinely surprised that Apple would dare reject an app made by Google. That is just astounding. Anyways, most people don't buy an iPhone to use AT&T. Apple hasn't rejected the Mapquest Maps app even though it duplicates and directly competes with Google Maps.

Maybe, its because of contracts but you can use google voice for at&ts other phones, though...just not iphone

Oh come on, msft a monopoly? Ever hear of Linux? StarOffice? Zoho? Google?
You don't need a Microsoft product unless you choose to use them.

And for Apple, they are worse than Microsoft ever was. Microsoft didn't prevent use of other products, they were just smart and gave their versions away for free or bought the companies competing with them. I'm not and never will buy anything Apple sells. They have helped push some technology further, a bit faster than it would have otherwise, but they don't care about their users, just their money.

Its obvious but I think its crap but then again, I don't know why I'm worrying about this. I don't have an iphone.

hey, tool,

at&t is only the exclusive initial carrier in this country. the same is not true in other countries. in fact in this country there are many people who have an iphone and are not on the at&t network. did you know that the apple store sells unlocked, uncontracted iphones?

your "duplicate's at&t's service" argument has as much a basis in logic as a square circle and as grounded in reality as the square root of -1.

As far as I can see AT&T are still getting the contract money regardless of whether or not this app is rejected. I don't see them losing much money at all there, or am I being slow today?

@ctk:

So from my post you "know" that I don't know they sell unlocked phones?

...

Always so impressed by how little it takes around here for people to "know" everything.

Let me rewind for ya:

"Apple and AT&T made a deal to get you the iPhone for $99, provided you use AT&T."

Does this exclude the possibility of unlocked phones? huh... Nope.

Unlocked/jailbroken iPhones can use other means of getting the apps, so AT&T and Apple don't really have much to say about them, making them completely irrelevant to the topic.

Google Voice (which I have on my Blackberry) does not duplicate or infringe on AT&T's service. When you inititate a call to someone (domestic US, I believe that GVoice charges for international calls), it calls your phone and connects you to the other party. You are still using the cell network to place the call. Txt messages, well, ok, I can see how that would infringe, but given that most people have unlimited txt messaging to begin with (almost a requirement to have an iPhone, wouldn't you say?), is Google's SMS service really intruding on AT&T's service?

Too closed platform, too much locking down and control.

Apple - Isn't that a typical action? If some one comes out with something better they always find a way to block it - and if not they block it anyway.
I still remember the sling box app. It's working just fine, but Apple decided not to publish it in the the app store.
Opera - a great browser, especially with the bookmark sync. - but no that would be to much competition for Apple.
Arrogance is one major reason Apple is hated in the MS community, even the product is not bad! LET THE USER DECIDE - Apple has no democracy what so ever.
I have a I-Phone as well but as soon there will be a nice ANDROID open source and I can choose what I want Apple will be gone - Sad actually - but I like to see my self what is the right one for me.

apple is a monopoly and they are creating a cartel to control everything and anything on their products. this will only hurt them in the long run.

We have to thank apple for forcing phone makers to do a better job.
Where is the EU anyways?? are they spending too much time counting the gold they fined from M$ and Intel?

"apple is a monopoly"

Do you even kno...

Ah, forget it, you obviously don't.

"It also happened with Opera Mini, which duplicated Safari's functionality"

So Apple is saying it's ok for MS to block all third party web browsers from Windows because they duplicate the functionality provided in IE...?

LMAO... I was thinking that very same thing... how is it that this is acceptable on an iPhone, but yet on the desktop, you can install and use as many different browsers (and other apps) that you want?

The plot thickens... I'm just waiting for the day that they [Apple] decide to lock down the OSX OS. What will Apple's defense be against that one?

This excuse of duplicate funcionality is so p!ss poor. What about all the voice memo apps then? And what about all the camera apps then? And why are they allowing TomTom when there's Google Maps? And what about all the other browsers available like iCab? What a p!ss poor excuse - duplicate functionality my ar$e. More like someone's doing something better than Apple themself. (Is it any conincidence that Apples voice commands don't work more often than they do? Duplicate functionality - I don't think so).

if apple is so concerned about "duplicate functionality" on the iphone/touch then why are there multiple browsers and gps programs and camera programs and streaming radio programs in the app store then?

this is a big bs argument. i would hope that google would pull the iphone/touch's use of google maps in protest.

even though i own an iphone and an itouch, i only went that way reluctantly because i know of apple's stance on the users using their products the way apple doesn't want them to. and people wonder why apple is the number 2 pc manufacturer by a lot. it starts at the top and works down.

two words Jail Break

Lawsuit coming up ;)

Google should simply publish their app on their website. Screw some store. All other phones and computer products allow installation of software in many ways, but no, Apple has to control you!