RSSFCC investigates Apple's App Store policy after Google Voice rejection
By Tim Conneally | Published July 31, 2009, 8:32 PM
Apple's rejection of the Google Voice iPhone app proved to be the last straw, and now the Federal Communications Commission is involved. The FCC has begun an investigation into the matter.
"The Federal Communications Commission has a mission to foster a competitive wireless marketplace, protect and empower consumers, and promote innovation and investment," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said this evening. "Recent news reports raise questions about practices in the mobile marketplace. The Wireless Bureau's inquiry letters to these companies about their practices reflect the Commission's proactive approach to getting the facts and data necessary to make the best policy decisions on behalf of the American people."
In its letters to AT&T, Apple, and Google, the Commission asked each party to clarify exactly what happened and why the application was blocked from the iTunes App Store.
To Apple, the commission posed questions redolent of a criminal investigation: "Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice..."
Among its half-dozen questions, the FCC bluntly asked Apple why the app was rejected, and whether there is a list of prohibited apps that is provided to potential vendors, developers and iTunes customers.
To AT&T, the commission asked a number of similar questions, and asked to "Explain AT&T's understanding of any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol applications that are currently used on the AT&T network, either via the iPhone or via handsets other than the iPhone."
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out this evening, this inquiry is significant because the FCC received no complaints about the rejection, and it was spurred purely by "Recent press reports [which] indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store."
Too bad Obama's Cybersecurity Czar Resigns? today..
We need a Communications Czar also.
Score: 0
|Yeah....let's just slide all responsibility from the 3 branches to appointed "Czars" so we can end-run around the Constitution and have our perfect utopia!
Yeah!
What could *possibly* go wrong??
Score: 0
|What a bunch of spoiled brats... Maybe Wilcox was right...
Apple runs a store.
Wal-Mart runs a store.
Cub Foods runs a store.
Right now, all of these stores can sell whatever products they choose.
Should we start forcing every Cub Foods to sell "Sweet Baby Ray's™ BBQ Sauce"?
Should we start forcing every Wal-Mart to sell "Dust-Off"™ Brand Air-Dusters?
Then why in the Nine Hells would we force Apple to sell any product they don't want tot sell?
(Right...because the entitled crowd they cater to *wants* them too...)
Score: 0
|Totally agree. Apple does not have a monopoly in cell phones. If you do not like the iPhone and the associated ball and chain of AT&T, simply do not buy one. There are truly tons of choice in cell phones, not so much in providers, but that is a different story.
I do not see why Apple would care about Google Voice, but i can see clear reasons why AT&T does not like it, so my money is on AT&T making Apple pulling the app.
Score: 0
|but what if an app someone writes is better than an app already approved but was rejected for some reason.... i'm sure that situation happens alot
Score: 0
|Hey, give us a break man (or woman). Wadda you do??? Work for the big A?? Clearly, Apple has displayed anticompetitive behavior for a long time. It's about time they have had to answer!
We didn't see Microsoft put a ban on those apps on the WM platform!
Score: 0
|"Clearly, Apple has displayed anticompetitive behavior for a long time."
How so?
Score: 0
|@jermort:
"Clearly, Apple has displayed anticompetitive behavior for a long time."
???
Clearly? To whom? How is their choosing what products show up in their store *any* different than Wal-Mart, or Target choosing what products fill *their* shelves?
Anti-Competitive? Are you high? They are involved in one of the most competitive markets in the *world*. They are *not* a monopoly...they can be as anti-competitive as they want to be.
Score: 0
|i suppose the letters from the fcc above are the result of transparency.
the smoking gun is likely to the fact that at&t is YAHOO SERVICE PROVIDER - HELLOOO!
Score: 0
|there is a reason why apples are red
the integrity of the fcc is as good as any republican.
apple can fix their problem cheaply by giving all the fcc employees a free iphone.
Score: -3
|This is another reason why I don't own any kind of cell phone. Too much drama.
Score: -1
|Beware when the FCC decides to get involved without complaint. I agree it's probably not fair for Apple and/or AT&T to not allow the app just because Google made it if that's what happened. However, we have court systems for that fight. A regulatory agency like the FCC is supposed to enforce law, make recommendations, and only get involved when complaints are files. This sets a somewhat dangerous precedent.
Another case of Government Gone Wild?
Score: -1
|Maybe so, but this might actually be a good thing for once if you go through my other posting on the subject (below whatever anyone else says, provided they actually have the nerve to square off with your brand of a** tard)
EDIT: Sorry, I had to fix a spelling error before I could be cut off from it and then some other s*** on top of fixing a typo which I should hve caught to begin with. Those g**d*** editing timeclocks always seem to be popping up all over ****ing cyberspace as I write this, and in the last places I'd even want them to be if I even wanted them at all!
Score: -1
|> ...provided they actually have the nerve to
> square off with your brand of a** tard.
Jeeze..didn't get your fiber this morning? Sorry my posting hit some sort of nerve with you being that I've never heard of you, discussed anything with you, or directed my post at you. Lighten up, guru...
I've spent a lot of time dealing with the FCC...generally in broadcasting. I just know from experience on that side that whenever the FCC decides to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty in a proactive way, businesses get stepped on, innovation goes out the window, and many lawsuits tend to follow.
Did AT&T misuse the spectrum? Are there interference complaints or type acceptance issues? Are the towers or hand units over-power? If they were using the airwaves to transmit kiddie-porn or aid in terrorism then I could see why the FCC should be involved. This seems to be better suited for an investigation from the Commerce Department rather than the FCC. My $0.02 worth. Hope that doesn't offend you.
Score: 0
|Well, if they don't allow something to work that it works in other providers I think that grants an investigation. What the FCC is doing, I think, is getting information to understand why this rejection was made and who really made it. And as JSDvs9172 said, this could be a really good start for looking at the way cell phone companies work nowadays. I don't live in the USA but would love that same thing to happen here at my country. Most of the claims made to the government regulatory offices are for such providers here.
Score: 0
|These are all some good points here (comments and article both) and I have to agree because this could really become something deeper as the FCC will probably now have no choice but to take up the issue of locked/timed exclusives involving cell phone sales in the U.S. (compared to other nations, at least) because of this ****ing mess. Try investigating the use of Skype connections on an AT&T iPhone (or tethering for that matter) and you'll see what I mean.
On the other hand, the Feds should not have let this s*** go unchecked for so many g**d*** years. (And besides, referencing the Almighty like that is something I don't take very lightly for reasons of common morality.) Of course, we all know these are the kind of things for which Bureaucrats get a bad rap but we desperately need them to be in on s*** like this even if we don't always trust them anyway! Oh, and the antitrust guys need a look at this too, as I think Apple may need to be split up into parts like the older incarnation of Ma Bell itself was processed back in the day over MacOS and iPhone in double! (Even though computer products like the iMac are a topic for another discussion...)
Yet even IF that is just my sole opinion, I can see a certain bit of coincidence to this (or perhaps not, depending on your opinion) when one stops to consider that the remainder of Ma Bell itself was bought out, did some buying and then started selling its current wireless services under the Ma Bell name... AFTER the original Ma Bell incarnate was gutted by the Feds in the first place! Kind of a wierd outcome if you ask me, considering what network the iPhone seems to be permanently glued to here in the States. And don't get me started on other such locked-up phones (I'm looking at you and your Palm Pre from here, Sprint 'tards!)
What I'm trying to say is that we need a different kind of wireless phone services competition in the U.S. marketplace if we're truly going to dispose of this bulls***. Just talking about one or two corporate sales/development traps isn't going to get us out of this mess.
Score: -1
|It was time this happens. All that draconian system of Apple to decide which apps go or not should be fixed already. A friend tried to create an account to publish a new application to the store (free). After 4 months he is still trying. He ended using another user for that who already had a validation done but it wasn't the proper outcome.
Score: 3
|So the FCC is now on a mission to stop Apple from rejecting apps just because they feel like it? Which is the only reason Apple rejected Google Voice by the way. Yay!
Score: 0
|when the FCC gets involved in the applications that can be run on your OS, you know you have a messed up system of doing things... lol
Score: 3
|Well, what's treally odd is Apple has approved a 3rd party app for Google voice ("GV Mobile"), but they reject Google's own app. I hope this gets resolved as we want to use our GV account more and I'm sure Google's app will make it easier.
Score: 0
|Awesome.
BTW, sure glad MY phone isn't subject to viruses.
Score: 2
|FCC?
Serious Business!
Score: 2
|Well something had to happen. It's all frankly a little odd this whole scenario of vetting the apps and giving no information about why it was block at all.
Score: 3
|i would to, its kind of an anti-competitive issue...may as well have the FCC take a swing at it, the courts wouldn't have any idea of whats up
i can see the answer by Apple now, uh, we have no real approval process we just kind of approve what we think our users will like lol and disallow anything that might take $ away from us now or in the future :)
Score: 4
|Anti-competitive?
Vs. What?
Themselves?
The App Store is only available to iPhones...if they don't want to allow it..and people want it I suppose they would just choose a different phone, Aye?
Score: -3
|apple can pick and choose which apps they allow in the app store. they can allow tom tom to have a gps app, but for your logic to hold any water, they cannot and should not allow any other gps app to be in the app store and should pull any gps app in the store currently. it's not comeptition between apple and another phone producer. its competition between the companies and individuals who produce apps for the app store. what apple is doing is needlessly anti competitive because they have allowed multiple apps that do the same thing to be in the app store without being denied for "duplicate functionality".
i don't think that the legal argument that they can decide which apps they will and will not offer if it agrees to all of apple's developmental agreements and standards will hold much water, especially in light of the fact that they have several apps that provide duplicate functionality in the app store already and they never rejected any of those previous apps.
what makes this even more ridiculous is that they approved a third party google voice app, but won't approve google's google voice app.
Score: 1
|" what apple is doing is needlessly anti competitive because they have allowed multiple apps that do the same thing to be in the app store without being denied for "duplicate functionality"."
It is *their* phone....and *their* store. Grocery stores get to choose what products they sell. Wal-mart gets to choose what products they sell....
Why is Apple different??? (Because the entitled crowd is entitled to everything they want, regardless of rationality, reason, common sense, or logic......)
Score: 0
|devs :) they make alot of $ and sometimes they invest alot and get rejected
Score: 0
|