![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-970666-100x100.png\")
This pleases me greatly. Someone at the FCC must want to use GV on their iPhone.
Apple and AT&T are just abusing iPhone users with this BS. Blackberry users on AT&T can use the official GV app, but AT&T can't control what they do. They're just taking advantage of the Apple walled garden because they're scared of consumers having more choices.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-929652-100x100.png\")
@OolonColluphid: This is fantastic....the FCC doing their job instead of obsessing over Janet Jackson's nipple!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1201340-100x100.png\")
The difference between Apple/at&t and nazis is that nazis dont require a two-year committment before they shoot you in the face.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-373342-100x100.png\")
@zacox: Hyperbole much? The difference between AT&T and the Nazis is that Nazis actually, you know, SHOOT YOU IN THE FUCKING FACE.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-453211-100x100.png\")
@chauncy that billups: Now hang on there. To some folks, mass murders and concentration camps are just as bad as not being able to own the newest, trendiest phone.
But seriously, I don't get why people get so pissy about the iPhone and AT&T. Don't like AT&T? Then don't freaking get the iPhone. Problem solved, whiny douchebags.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-183296-100x100.png\")
@supercereal: No doubt. As much as I'd like an iPhone, I refuse to use AT&T's wireless services. So I make do with an iPod Touch and my Sprint cell (and unlike a lot of commenters on this site, I've never had a problem with Sprint and my phone's call quality is excellent). Maybe one of these days Apple will wise up and stop limiting themselves to one carrier.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-890779-100x100.png\")
@supercereal: I smell an apple fanboi! (and it pains me so to write it with the i on the end like that... but thats how they seem to like it..)
@supercereal: Seriously though... There has to be something said about fair play and neutrality, doesn't there?
I'm guessing this new-and-improved FCC will have lots to say about neutrality. I see a future where nobody gets to choose what kinda data you transfer other than you. Certainly not at&t.
If this means that at&t cant close off ports to Skype, Sling or any number of other services that use the Internet to which they are supposedly offering access, then at&t will just have to figure out another way to fleece its customers.
Better yet (and this goes for Verizon too) stop fleecing everyone! If they just adopted an all-you-can-eat like Boost, that didn't cost $600 a month for a family of 5, they would realize so much more revenue. But I digress.....
@zacox: I certainly agree with the principle that, within reason, you should be able to have the majority of control on a device you purchased. Especially with regards to the transfer and accessibility of information, a la net neutrality.
I guess my main point was that far too many people think it's unfair that Apple has partnered exclusively with AT&T, thereby \"forcing\" them to use that network. A specific network is attached to the device, and if that is unsuitable, then one has the option to go elsewhere.
@supercereal: You had me at \"option\". It's true--if you don't like what a business is selling, don't buy it! I vote with my dollars all the time, and I encourage others to do the same.
I think what draws my ire, and that of most, is not how much they charge (at&t, verizon, et al), but how they charge it.
First, you have voice minutes. Choose wisely, because if we don't pick a plan with enough minutes, they will sock us. But, if we choose a plan with too many minutes, they don't let us return them, either. (In the interest of fairness, at&t does offer rollover.)
Second, we have all the add-ons and extras. Send texts? Add on a package or else they're .20 apiece ($1300 per MB!). Data? Add on a package or else it's gonna cost us anywhere from $1.99 to $199 per MB.
Third, they don't even have the stones to tell us to our faces that they are really charging us more than we thought. Federal Universal Service Charge is a euphemism for another word: profit. It's not a tax. It's corporate recovery (read: money grab) of fees they are charged by the government. But, instead of saying that our plan costs 111.33, they say it costs 99.99 with a 11.34% fee.
Fourth, when we decide that we don't like the service anymore or aren't getting the value we thought we were, we still have up to two years suckling their teat until they let us go.
No other type of business makes us decide up front how much we plan to consume without letting us take home the leftovers. And, no other type of business penalizes us for not buying enough up front! And, no other business charges us for not buying their crap if we believe their crap no value.
And, that's only half the reason why people hate the carriers.
The other half is that once we buy the equipment and pay the fees, we endure endless disappointment in the things that are disabled, hobbled and frowned-upon. Using your own ring tone should be a simple task, except that it's disabled by a carrier that wants the revenue from the tone sale (again, Verizon, I'm looking squarely at you!).
I could go on ad nauseum. And, I really want to! But you get the point.
I have no love loss for an industry so bent on extracting every single dollar from its clientele. And they wonder why there is so much churn.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-965713-100x100.png\")
@zacox: My last 3 verizon phones, I circumvented the \"you only get ringtones from us\" feature. Ah the wonders of the internet. I love the fact my BB asks me if I want to use every sound as a ringtone.
@jayphat: Oh, I never said it wasn't possible! In fact, there's a whole sector of the interwebs devoted to modifying your handset so you can get what you want out of it. Getting back to the original topic, I suspect jailbroken iPhones can use Google voice all day every day.
Its unfortunate that only 2 out of every 100 people know that they don't have to bend over for Verizon, Apple, at&t, etc, and can install new ROMs and seem edit, and re-enable functionality that they paid for.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@supercereal: Think of it as if GM built a car that only ran on fuel only available CONTRACTUALLY with Exxon Mobil. It is a monopoly that should not be allowed to happen. If I purchase a product I should be able to use it at any other service provider. The technology can easily be applied just like the way cell phone companies bitched about number portability , until it was forced upon them
Weird analogy. GM nor Apple approach the concept of 'monopoly'. Don't like GM rules? Great, buy a Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Ford, Chrysler...
Don't like Apple IPhone rules? BUY A DIFFERENT PHONE. Don't complain about the well-known, well-publicized, not-at-all-a-secret rules that were in effect when you bought the phone.
\"If I purchase a product I should be able to use it at any other service provider.\" Really? If you purchase a product with restrictions on its use, you should be able to use the product within the restrictions you agreed to. After all, YOU AGREED TO THEM.
@gaywolverine: Nobody complains about Nintendo not developing games for PS3 or XBox. Apple developing a phone for AT&T is no different.
There's a huge difference between monopoly (which this is absolutely not...there are thousands of other phones on numerous other networks) and an exclusive.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-237394-100x100.png\")
@The Donut Pirate: I believe you meant to say \"GM selling a car?\"
I believe the old saying goes, if a lawbreaking product is never sold, does it violate anything?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-232165-100x100.png\")
@gaywolverine: Your analogy doesn't work.
you're buying a service. that uses a particular device.
It would be like requiring a game developerto license their games to all consols and never allow exclusives.
I mean this is a free market last I checked. And if AT&T isn't in a air wave violation what exactly does a stupid iphone ap that effects maybe less than 1% of the population have anything to do with the FCC?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350350-100x100.png\")
@gaywolverine: But why shouldn't Apple have a right to reject any app it wants since it, you know, runs and manages the app store. It's the same thing as consumerist deciding what articles make this site. They control the site, they control what goes on it.
Apple shouldn't have to justify their denials to anyone, they are entitled to such control.
However collusion with AT&T is another matter entirely. But don't worry, I'm sure Steve Jobs and Co. will pay off the right people and make this all go away.
@dragonfire81: Actually Apple is running the store, but they do not produce all the apps. Apple needs to justify if they are not allowing competition.The case law is clear. Think Microsoft embedding IE in windows and not allowing Firefox or Opera, or Chrome on their OS.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87038-100x100.png\")
@dragonfire81: By now probably no one is reading this thread, but I just wanted to say that the material difference here is that in addition to being able to reject apps from their App Store, Apple also prevents you from getting apps any OTHER way. It's fine for Wal-Mart to choose not to carry a particular product, their decision not to carry it doesn't prevent me from buying it from Target. If Apple/AT&T allowed you to install apps from other sources, they could block anything from the app store for any reason and no one would really care.
@GearheadGeek: you still signed and agreed to the terms of service from AT&T and Apple so there for the ball is in their court.
Just like every single other carrier in the US.
Don't like it? Don't buy it.
@GearheadGeek: You know I thought about that very point at work today and now the controversy here makes more sense to me.
@dragonfire81: Since the iPhone is a phone device the FCC has broad jurisdiction over it. If Apple is being anti competitive they will have problems. I think the FCC is coming down on them because they are colluding with AT&T to stifle innovation from specific competitors.
I don't think Steve has nearly enough money to make this go away now that it's public.
@thezone: Yeah but that doesn't change the fact Apple still has control over what it allows on its device.
Why shouldn't they be able to refuse apps if they want without having to justify the refusal to anyone? They have the control, they use it.
@dragonfire81: The problem is they are not making the decision. If Apple solely made the decision the FCC wouldn't be asking any questions. The fact that AT&T seems to be influencing these decisions is the problem. Two companies cannot collude with each other in this manner. So yes. Now they have to justify their reasoning to show that they are not behaving in an anti-competitive manner.
@thezone: Still though, what's to stop someone at Apple from just coming up with some long ass statement full of supposed \"reasons\" for the denial that have NOTHING to do with AT&T?? Absolutely nothing.
I'm sure Apple has some folks that could come up with a smart enough line of BS to convince the FCC to back down.
@dragonfire81: That will depend on if the FCC thinks Apple is lying. Lying to the government usually isn't a good thing. If there are emails from AT&T to Apple they shouldn't lie. If there were only phone calls then they could pretty much say whatever they want.
Let's see if Apple says AT&T makes all the decisions and AT&T says Apple makes all the decisions.
@outlulz: It won't matter who says what -- in the end, Apple is holding the smoking gun. Except for \"voices in your head\" and in some cases military chains of command, saying someone told me to do it isn't a valid defense.
I like how the questions to AT&T also focus on things like Sling and Skype which other handsets can use without limits and the iPhone can't.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-930037-100x100.png\")
This is ridiculous. Those who bought iPhones did so knowing that they were a) stuck with ATT and b) Apple approved all APP store content. You don't have a right to an iPhone; there are other smartphones on the market.
@Esquire99: It's not necessarily a right to an iPhone...but the right to use software that isn't bound to AT&T and their charges. Which every iPhone user is entitled to.
@Esquire99: I think the problem is that people were OK with both of those... with the understanding (or assumption) that Apple's approval/disapproval for applications wouldn't totally suck. That is, if decisions on approval were based more on the application itself (i.e. it doesn't work, it has inappropriate content, it has a legitimate security risk to the phone and/or cell network) and less on the business interests of the carrier, it'd be fine.
(Of course, let's not get started on the applications that have been approved that never should have been, and the applications that were declined for ridiculous or even non-existent reasons, without any real way of appealing those decisions...)
@LoadStar: you live in a fantsy world. Why would they let a competing app on a phone that only they sell to be used ONLY on AT&T?
So when i go into FedEx they should take my UPS package as well right?
@LoadStar:
so you're ok letting them make decisions as long a you agree with them? Make sense. Can we do the same with the president? We can have him removed as soon as he makes decisions we don't like?
@Esquire99:
That comment right there just proved that you know nothing about your consumer and citizen rights. If enough people dislike the president you can impeach him, which is what they did to Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
Anyway, this news is great to me from someone who owns a iPhone and who uses Google Voice. But regardless its great that the FCC is starting to take a stand for consumers against monopolizing companies.
@meltingcube:
First off, the \"people\" can't impeach the president; only Congress can. It's not like there is a national vote that is held if enough people complain.
Further, I know plenty about my rights. I have a RIGHT to purchase a non-iPhone if I don't like Apple/ATT's policies.
Next, Apple/ATT doesn't have a monopoly. They make one cell phone product, which happens to be a very popular one. But they don't have a cell phone monopoly.
\"Further, I know plenty about my rights. I have a RIGHT to purchase a non-iPhone if I don't like Apple/ATT's policies.\"
REALLY?! Me thinks you are extrapolating the concept of \"equal treatment, perhaps non-discrimination\" a bit far and then misapplying it. Or do you honestly believe that is a right?
\"This is ridiculous.\" You say about the FCC inquiry/discovery. It's nice to see you just stating your opinions for others to consider because your analysis and comment on consumer law and corporate behavior makes you look like a shill, and worse, a bit of a dullard.
I don't really think that is what is being said. I don't have the iPhone (I have the G1), but if I DID I know I would be buying it with the condition that Apple/At&t has to approve every app. That being said, I think it is reasonable to only expect them to block malicious/non-working apps, not apps that can interfere with their profits.
@Esquire99: But...but...it's the iPhone! Everyone NEEDS one! And since I absolutely need one, but hate AT&T, I'm going to complain about corporate partnerships until Apple partners with every phone company just to please me. Not buying one is out of the question!
With that said, I'm going to go complain about how I can't play any Nintendo games on my PS3. Exclusivity is so unfair!!111
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-493178-100x100.png\")
@supercereal: being unable to play a nintendo game on your ps3 when it was not written for the console (ie it won't run because its not coded right is not the same situation. here is what WOULD be the same. Nintendo makes a game for all the game systems that can handle running it (just like they made google voice for all the phones that can hand/run it) and sony goes out and removes that game for the ps3 from all store shelves, preventing it from being sold and used on their system
@supercereal: The issue is Apple and AT&T are creating an anti-competitive marketplace. While Apple and AT&T are private companies they are using the public airwaves. Therefore, they have a greater responsibility to keep their systems open. They have no competition in their specific bandwidth because we (the public) gave that to them. Since there is no competition in their bandwidth space they are regulated by the FCC. And the FCC has broad powers over them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-177102-100x100.png\")
@supercereal: You should have mentioned \"censorship\" too. They're censoring Google -- in the same way my freedom of speech is abridged when I'm told I can't duplicate and sell bootleg movies I download off the Internet.
@XianZomby: On one hand, they should be able to control everything running on their hardware/network. On the other hand, net neutrality (which doesn't necessarily apply in this case) is vital to fairness and open access.
...and I'm not sure if there's sarcasm in your last comment. If not, I feel pretty sorry for you -- stealing and reselling copyrighted movies has nothing to do with \"freedom of speech.\"
@gaywolverine: I don't think you truly understand how valid analogies work...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-63809-100x100.png\")
@XianZomby: Except that Apple isn't the government. As a non-government entity, they don't have to observe the same free speech policies that the government has to.
@supercereal: Not in any way the same. The airwaves that the cell phone companies USE, are owned my the American public. You would not accept Gm buying a car that runs on water but can only be provided from Exxon.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1050308-100x100.png\")
@Esquire99: You do have the right to have the telecommunications company you are paying for services from follow clearly defined rules. The FCC has every right, and duty, to investigate this incident. Even if you do purchase a product with known limitations to begin with you should expect the company to act responsibly afterward.
You either 1) know very little about your own rights as a consumer, or 2) are just anti-apple all the way around and like posting useless comments. This has nothing to do with users thinking they have a right to an iphone, and everything to do with them knowing they have a right to consumer protections in the highly regulated telecommunications sector.
Google Voice is great but it really needs an app to make it work well. It's time for the heavy hand of Apple to get slapped hard.
I hope both Apple and ATT get slapped with huge fines. this news just made my day.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-14723-100x100.png\")
@Stoli: And back room negotiations that they (AT&T and Apple) have regarding Google Voice could run afoul of FTC regulations. But that makes me wonder why the FCC is investigating and not the FTC right away... Maybe the FCC could get the process rolling and hand it off to the FTC when something turns up.
Score +1 for us users! I recently purchased an iPhone and while I like the product, Apple's draconian control on app development is already ticking me off. I'm going to enjoy my phone, but I've decided that this Apple product will be my first and last. By the time I'm looking for a new phone, I hope Android has matured into a solid (and more open) alternative.
@Esquire99: You keep coming back to the why did we buy an iPhone. Well let me spell it out for you. First, every flagship phone is beholden to one carrier. Palm Pre - Sprint, G1 - T-Mobil, iPhone - Apple. So if you like a specific smart phone you already have to pigeon hole yourself into a specific phone. Second, everyone who bought an iPhone was locked into a 2 year contract. The original purchasers are just coming up on two years now. So they did not know the App Store would be as screwed up as it is. Additionally, most of the anti-competitive behavior has only surfaced in the last few months. Google Voice is a good example and Slingbox is another. Yes there were a lot of applications they denied that were useful but the applications really were not mainstream like the more recent rejections. Finally, some people bought the phone despite Apple and AT&T's rule because they still like the phone. That does not mean they cannot be happy that the FCC is finally coming down on them. I've liked my iPhone since I bought it 8 months ago. However, I feel the platform is being held back by AT&T's inability to expand their network. In your reasoning you can never complain about any item or service you purchase because, hey you bought it. Classic OP blamer.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-236513-100x100.png\")
About time!!!!!!!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-84966-100x100.png\")
I am so happy about this. AT&T seems to be making Apple break apps that challenge their revenue stream or makes them provide *more* (gasp) for the same money.
I can only hope that the answers are made public as well. (I say that because they probably won't.)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68654-100x100.png\")
holy shit! who woke up the folks in the anti-trust division?
$20 says google makes more political contribs than apple & at&t combined. anybody care to find the numbers?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1231022-100x100.png\")
@mac-phisto: Currently? If so, I'd probably believe it. Otherwise, not a chance, since AT&T is ancient compared to both Google and Apple.
@mac-phisto: the investigation probably was initiated by someone who had a iphone and got pissed off b/c he couldnt use google voice
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1221787-100x100.png\")
I'm willing to bet that politicians absolutely LOVE google's help with contributions.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
\"What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons?\"
That's going to be a loooong answer there...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-277413-100x100.png\")
Answer- anything truly useful, anything that's not as profitable as they'd like, and anything that allows you to use your iPhone in any way that THEY don't like.
i'm gonna sound like a total geek here, but this is better than tyson vs. holyfield.
queue vince mcmahon:
\"in this corner, we have dot-com busters, microsoft/yahoo. & in this corner we have the dynamic duo, at&t/apple. & finally, in this corner we have the angel that can do no wrong, google. cage match rules - only one leaves here alive. the winner marries my hot-as-hell daughter.\"
It's things like this that are scaring me away from Apple. Apple: I'd love to try to develop an app for the app store, but I feel like you'll randomly reject an app I put hours into, and you'll turn around and approve the next porn sharing app. If/when I get into programming, I'm probably looking at Android. It's not moderated so harshly.
Amazing that useful stuff like this gets rejected, but you can freely download a GPS based weed-finder, a porn app, and a coke-sniffing simulator. For a while you could even download a baby-shaking app! Gotta love Crapple- allowing you to do pointless shit with your iPhone but nothing truly useful :)
With every iPhone story I read on here, I love my HTC Touch Pro all the more. I can use my Google Voice account with it, and I don't even NEED an app to do it.
Windows Mobile = Freedom.
Iphone = Communism.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@kabuk1: You lost me after saying that coke-sniffing simulators, spliff-finders and baby-shakers were \"frivolous\".
And if you're uninterested in porn, you have no business buying a 3G phone.
@Trai_Dep: I wonder if they monitor what people DL and watch on phones it would be incredibly easy for them to do...
@Trai_Dep:
Oh, I'm not saying I don't occasionally enjoy a delve into the seemy underbelly of the net on my mobile browser, I'm just saying that its amazing the kind of stuff that does get approved vs. what doesn't.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-39117-100x100.png\")
@kabuk1: I don't see what Apple's control over the iPhone has to do with communism -- fascism seems the better parallel. I wouldn't call Windows Mobile absolute freedom, either -- at least, not compared with an unlocked Android phone (where you-the-user can go as far as to build and install your own firmware at will); it's somewhere between the two poles.
esquire, do you not feel this is paramount to microsoft limiting who and what you may view and use with their browser, including which apps you may utilize?
I feel if one buys a product it should now be theirs to do with as they wish as long as it does not mean tearing it apart to make the same item and sell it as their own invention.
Corporations need to realize WE are the ones keeping them in business not their stock holders. WE deserve rights also.
why would the FCC care what AT&T and Apple do? They're not breaking any violations as far as airwaves or swearing.
what magical function does the FCC think it has over an Iphone app?
I don't think it was \"fair\" what Apple did but that's their business decision.
There is no violation here, way too much government in my business.
How about they focus on why text messages have increased instead of decreased?
Or fix our damn health care system?
Or regulate or Federal Reserve system.
@Skankingmike: Couldn't agree more. How is this an FCC issue again? The conspiracy theorist in me makes me think that Google has some federal pull to get a global domination agenda going.
@Skankingmike: Considering what damage that Clear Channel has done to breaking new musical acts, I can think of a few areas more important for the FCC to stick its nose into.
@Trai_Dep: OMG yes! how abuot it took them more than a year to approve Siri and XM only to basically kill them off.
I'm sure Clear Channel had no influence over that.
@Skankingmike: Yup. Or your other points, particularly the text message cost thing, since it's related to the FCC and is something every carrier does, making it more hard to justify.
Don't get me wrong, I hate AT&T with a passion, but popularity aside, it doesn't control enough phones to impact the industry. I would like to see disclosure, either way.
But the consolidation of radios mess, or the texting sham is a bigger fish, I'd think.
Hmm would it be ok for Microsoft to dictate what software could run on its OS? Apple has clearly stated the iphone is not a phone its a computer that happens to make phone calls. Restricting apps on it is no different than if microsoft were to do an update to disable firefox.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-261962-100x100.png\")
@Halfdeaddavid: The difference is Microsoft controlling software on someone elses hardware (essentially locked into that hardware), versus Apple controlling their software on their hardware.
That applies to the computers and anti trust law as far as I understand it, but this whole GV thing is mainly about ATT colluding with apple on what software can run on the phone.
If Apple has been consistent with application denial and did so with no influence from ATT then they may not get in trouble. However, that doesn't seem to be the case here.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-160819-100x100.png\")
@Halfdeaddavid: They could do it, yes. Would it be smart? Nope, not in the case of an OS like Windows. People would leave it for other things.
There are tons of people who still want an iPhone and don't have a Google Voice account or even care about that type of app.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1220420-100x100.png\")
@Halfdeaddavid: Considering the last few times I gave up fighting my school's website and tried to use Internet Explorer my computer crashed the moment I opened the app, I would be very pissed if Microsoft ever tried to do that. I would say, no. It is not up to the manufacturer to dictate what you can do with their computer once you've purchased it. It's my computer now, I should be able to run anything legal on it that is designed my its programmers to work with my OS.
I'm confused as to how this is any different than, say, Walmart or Target making the decision on what products they want to carry in their stores. No one has a *right* to sell something in someone else's store.
I'm also quite concerned with the FCC's blatant overreach of power here. Who do they think they are, the Federal Reserve?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-129735-100x100.png\")
@TheUncleBob: Most of the questions are concerning AT&T which goes along with the FCCs concern that cell phone companies are being anti competitive with exclusive (and monopolistic) arrangements with cell phones.
@Rachacha: Which has been done since the dawn of cell phones, and nobody cared. People just make a fuss now because they can't get the hopelessly trendy iPhone on any network they want. Network technologies aside, it's not a monopoly when you have choices between thousands of other phones on several other networks. People are just afraid that if they can't have the iPhone, they're not \"hip.\"
@supercereal: Why do you hate people who have nice things? This behavior has not been done since the dawn of cell phones. Cell phone providers did not have open standard development systems with a closed approval process. The os makers who had open development platforms allowed companies to independently develop their software and distribute it to the end user. Apple is the first os supplier to supply an open api but at the same time restrict the distribution method. The FCC is getting involved where they should be. AT&T and Apple are acting in an anti-competitive way. You are just stuck being angry because you feel you are better than people who have \"popular\" things. Yeah I'm sure all those \"hip\" people that never talk to you piss you off so much that you are blinded as much as some of the people you are actually whining about.
@thezone: There's a big difference between hating people who have nice things and people who feel they're entitled to nice things to be given to them, be damned whomever owns them to begin with.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-94321-100x100.png\")
voip will eventually destroy the phone companies... this is inevitable.
why should AT&T help speed the process along?
@Crazytree: GV is not VOIP. Why don't you go google it before you mouth off about something you clearly don't know about.
Actually there are laws that tell Walmart and Target what they can sell. There are laws against anti competitive behavior. While in most cases those laws dont dictate what products they have to carry if they push it too far an an anti competitive way. They would get a letter from the DoJ.
@Halfdeaddavid: Only if they all colluded, or if one retailer was ruled to have an effective monopoly. Neither is the case here.
@Trai_Dep: No there's no collusion. Funny how applications that take a bite out of AT&T's pocket are rejected. Slingbox and Google Voice only do things that you have to pay extra on the AT&T network to do. It's also funny that Apple told Google the application would be approved. AT&T is dictating to Apple to remove things for their bottom line which is not necessarily in the best interest of Apple. So please tell me how it does not appear that AT&T is colluding with Apple.
It's not akin to Microsoft shoving its users with Internet Explorer since the user is not limited to it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-151293-100x100.png\")
Exactly what jurisdiction DOES the FCC have over this? Whether you agree with what Apple/AT&T is doing or not, this has nothing to do with the airwaves. If the concern is a potential anti-trust issue, that sounds more like a FTC matter to me.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Apple or AT&T have any requirement to answer the FCC's questions regarding this matter as it doesn't even fall under their purview.
Yesss! Go get 'em, boys!
This article actually made me giddy! I haven't been a fan of Apple since the Apple 2e computer, I decided to buy the 3gs when I saw a friend show me photos, as a photographer it is super handy to have a portfolio with me at all times, it is better then how my Blackberry Bold displayed them...
But then I realized how great the graphics in games were and some great uses of the accelerometer, I became very impressed with the iPhone.
Then I started to pay attention to what Apple and AT&T were doing to indie developers, rejecting apps without explanation, time and money thrown away. Along with a lack of MMS and tethering, they are also holding off on augmented reality apps till 3.1...
I paid $560 the phone is MINE, if I was renting it, that is one thing, but I bought it, I should be able to install whatever I want.
I am looking forward to their answers.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17044-100x100.png\")
They rejected it because the phone companies know life as it is will change in a few years. You don't even need a home phone anymore.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-29075-100x100.png\")
I find it curious so many people here are confused about why the FCC is involved in this case. The second \"C\" stands for \"communication\". You guys know that right?
I welcome the FCC's involvement. There's no reason other phones should be able to use GV, Sling etc and not the iPhone.
@Vader582: and what exactly does an app on an FCC approved phone being declined have anything at all to do with them? It doesn't.
AT&T and Apple are both within their rights here as far as communications go. There's no law stating what Apple or AT&T has to allow or not allow on their phones.
@Skankingmike: \"Their\" phones. WTF is it with you people who keep referring to MY phone that I paid money for as \"theirs\"--belonging to Apple, or AT&T.
My phone is MINE. When I bought it, the right to decide what can and cannot run on it transferred to ME. Not the manufacturer and not the carrier.
This is an EXACT repeat of why \"the old AT&T\" was broken up in the first place. They tried to restrict people from using devices other than AT&T approved phones (rented by AT&T) on AT&T's phone lines. People, on the other hands, wanted to use newfangled answering machines that enhanced the value of their phone and added features. The courts ruled that AT&T's rule was fucked up and you can plug in any phone you want that doesn't actually harm the lines, and use the service you are paying for in any way you wish.
I paid for my phone, and I pay for my phone service. (and dearly for both, I might add.) It is my right to run whatever applications I want on my phone.
Apple's role as gatekeeper was initially touted as an advantage--Apple would just keep out the malware and broken, incompatible apps, guaranteeing that you wouldn't accidentally crash your phone like a Windows XP computer full of viruses. (Which WOULD happen otherwise.) What Apple didn't say from the beginning was that they would be blocking from the store any app they wanted to, for any reason they wanted to, and with no explanation. That's fucked up.
@West Coast Secessionist: actually upon purchasing your iphone you agree to their terms and conditions.
@West Coast Secessionist: You can do virtually whatever you want with your iPhone. However, don't expect Apple to host the applications on their servers and don't expect AT&T to let you use applications they don't approve on their network.
@Vader582: Simply because the FCC is the \"Federal Communications Commission\", it doesn't mean they have ultimate authority over all communications.
It'd be about like the FCC demanding to know why FOX canceled FireFly or Sarah Connor. That'd be more interesting.
@Skankingmike: I think it's more like a console refusing to run games that the console maker doesn't want to allow (which also happens...)
@psm321: doh! Stupid button...
Anyway what I was going to type...
It's like a third-party developer that has an exclusivity clause with a consol that doesn't allow another third party mod to the game.
if we want to get super into it.
Basically there's nothing illegal here it's just big government trying to tell businesses how to run themselves and the apple \"fanboi's\" foaming at the mouth over something so stupid and moot. Don't like it don't buy it.
You want ultimate government involvement move to Europe.
@Skankingmike: I don't agree with you that there is nothing illegal here. We (including the FCC) don't know if there is anything illegal happening here, which is why the FCC is sending letters asking the parties to explain their actions.
Once we weed out the hyperbole of all the non-lawyers, libertarians and Godwin's freaks, there are at least two real legal questions that the FCC has all the required power to explore:
1) To what degree do the carrier and the handset manufacturer/application provider collude with regard to the usage of the hardware and network? There are reasonable reasons to coordinate their activity (e.g., that app breaks our network), and there are potentially unreasonable reasons to coordinate (e.g., that app breaks my revenue model). The carrier licenses that wireless providers operate under do not give them carte blanche to do anything they want.
2) When companies act, they generally raise red flags when their actions are not seen as consistent. In this case, the availability of similar features on other handset/network combinations raises a fair question as to why one class is OK to use the features and one class is not allowed.
In the end, what is going to bite Apple and AT&T in the ass isn't the iPhone, its the blackberry. If the features of the GV app truly caused anything other than financial harm, then the correct course of action would have been to cry foul on the Blackberry app. When AT&T let the BB app stand (because they don't have a choke point to stop it), they exposed themselves to questions of neutrality. When Apple agreed to kill the app, they exposed themselves to questions of inappropriate collusion.
I'm app for companies doing everything they can to maximize profits -- well everything except breaking the rules... Now we get to see if anyone broke the rules...
@ndonahue: question.
Why isn't the FCC going after Monopolized cable markets?
Why isn't the FCC going after Verizon for locking their phones and not allowing ANY apps on it competing or other wise?
you can't answer that and you never will.
This is a first step, but it is easily possible to answer these questions without telling anything about the process. All Apple and AT&T have to do is say that AT&T was not consulted, and AT&T does not need to answer any other questions. Apple only needs to answer the first question with the answer they have given all along \"It duplicates a feature already built into the phone\" with a bit of an explanation.
I am surprised that the FCC did not state that they should use a #2 pencil, they should keep their eyes on their own work and answer all questions independently.
\"What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications?\"
Somehow, I don't think even Apple can answer that one.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1161-100x100.png\")
Oh my, will Apple be forced to bow down to someone?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-117360-100x100.png\")
@Ben Popken: Or this could just be one of those publicity stunts where Apple and AT&T can pretend to comply, but safely brush off the FCC with impunity.
/cynicism
Big Government strikes again.
How about you vote against Apple/AT&T with your wallet, like we did it in the old days when consumers made choices, rather than using the strong arm of government to pitch a fit?
@kraftmayo: We could vote with our wallets, however despite some of the limitations on the phone, and Apple's heavy hand when it comes to applications, it is still one of the best, if not the best smart phones on the market, and it prompted other phone manufacturers to try to innovate and deliver a competitive product. So you do have a choice, Buy a Moto Razr, Buy a Window's mobile device, buy a Palm Treo (because if apple didn't push, the Pre would not be on the market), or buy a Blackberry if you don't want to buy an iPhone. I'll take the heavy hand of Apple and live with a nearly perfect phone.
NOTE: I am an iPhone owner, and my iPhone and the iPod it replaced are the only Apple products I have ever owned, so I am not an Apple \"Fanboy\"
@kraftmayo: Oh yeah. That's right. We can vote with our pocketbooks. But wait what about all the people who are in contracts. Shouldn't they have a right to a competitive market place? The government's role is to protect the public against colluding companies. As long as Apple and AT&T don't collude everything will be fine. Please go back to your 50 acre compound with your survival packs. The government will be knocking on your door shortly.
@kraftmayo: I did sign a contract. That does not give Apple the right to act in an anti-competitive way. It also does not mean I can't complain about the service. If you sign a lease for an apartment you still have rights. You can also complain if your service deteriorates. When I signed my contract Apple was not being as heavy handed as they are now. I'm not breaking my contract I'm complaining about it and I'm happy the FCC is looking into their business practices. If they are legal the the FCC should back off. But if they appear to be illegal they should investigate.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-93244-100x100.png\")
A well-deserved smackdown. Is it illegal for AT&T and apple to put \"non-compete\" clauses in their application API agreement?
Google Voice isn't even a VOIP app. Tricking Congress is sooo easy commandant.
@silver-bolt: Do you use Google Voice? You can make calls with it and you get a phone number. What else do you have to do to make it a VoIP appication?
@thezone: VOIP = Voice Over IP.
Q: What else do you have to do to make it a VoIP appication?
A: You have to transmit Voice Over IP.
Google Voice Sends VOICE over THE PLAIN OLD TELEPHONE SYSTEM.
So Google Voice is not Voice over IP. It doesn't send Voice over anything but the PLAIN OLD TELEPHONE SYSTEM. Using your same minutes as you would otherwise. Not \"for free.\"
So it's Voice Over POTS, or VOPOTS. Which is what all phones do.
Not everything voice is VOIP. For example, the copper phone line in your house also lets you \"make calls with it and you get a phone number.\" Do you think it's VOIP too?
@West Coast Secessionist: Lol you are correct in stating that the 2 end users do not have to be VoIP but you are insane if you think that GV does not utilize VoIP routing as a cost effective measure for their service.
@West Coast Secessionist: I stand corrected. Google Voice does not use VoIP as I first thought. Using your application it calls the recipient with your Google Voice number and it makes a call to you on your cell number.
I totally understand that people who have land lines (not me) are going using POTS. I thought Google Voice was transmitting over voip. So as I said I stand corrected. My mistake.
@thezone: I believe it consolidates all your numbers? so you can forward all numbers to one line. SO AT&T really gets the the same money regardless of use.
I think they're mad about the text messaging but i would imagine the iphone plan is unlimited text messaging anyway?
really it's just a pissing match
I love how people act as though they are entitled to an iPhone. I am an owner of one, and annoyed at Apple for pulling the apps, but I could have easily gone the Blackberry or Android route.
NO ONE IS MAKING PEOPLE BUY AN IPHONE. You choose to buy it, you play by the rules of the carrier or maker. THE END.
Keep the damn Fed out of every stupid situation some of you want to cry about.
@dreamsneverend: So do you even realize that you own your own phone? What gives them the right to control the way you use it? What do you mean \"play by the rules\"?
What if you walked out of Wal-Mart after buying a laptop they came out into the parking lot and told you \"You're using your laptop wrong, OUR RULES say when you buy a laptop from us you're only allowed to use Bing search. You're using Google. Let me remove your ability to access Google to fix that.
\"Oh and you're about to buy Microsoft Office. Our partnership with Acme Office Suite Inc. doesn't allow us to allow you to use Microsoft Office. OUR RULES, you see. We'll prevent you from installing that.
\"Oh, and I see you're trying to install TurboTax. You can't do that. We won't even tell you WHY! But our RULES say we can do it, so, tough. Oh, and to return your laptop you'd have to pay a $175 cancellation fee.\"
Does no one respect the right of first sale anymore???
@West Coast Secessionist: Everything you said is a perfect example to let your dollar rule the roost. If you don't like the laptop you bought at Wal-Mart you can get one from another store or run another OS.
You can jailbreak your phone and use Google Voice apps!
Don't give them the sale and take your rights elsewhere. If people really cared they would quickly change when the money goes away.
@dreamsneverend: But you can't jailbreak your phone since that is against DMCA. You also void your warranty when you jailbreak your phone. If Apple is allowed to act in an anti-competitive way the other carriers will be allowed to do so also. Then where will the consumer be able to go?
@dreamsneverend: No one is acting like they are entitled to an iPhone. Owners of iPhones are entitled to having an open marketplace. If you read the questions being asked they are trying to figure out if Apple and AT&T are colluding together. No one is saying there should be an iPhone in every pot.
@undefined: I can see why ATT wouldn't want some of these things on the iPhone, but I just bought an e71x from them and they removed a lot of useful features for no reason. For instance, they removed the dialing assistant feature that allows you to just type the contact's name at the home screen. The non-ATT e71 has it and my old ATT Black Jack did too. It also doesn't have the driver to print from a WIFI connected printer and the barcode scanner. Why bother removing this just to annoy me?
Oh, and ATT navigator is a big pile of suck.
jailbreak the damn thing
n economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb \"monopolize\" refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition.
If this is reversed, what's to say this won't lead to metered data access and higher monthly fees? Aren't we teetering on that anyway? Aren't we fortunate as it relative to other countries' data plans? I'm not posting in defense of any company, but they will probably say that GV data traffic is causing additional strain on the network which they can't regulate as well as voice traffic, or something like that.
@ohwevad: It seems you don't know how Google Voice operates either. It's not VoIP, it makes all the calls over your regular phone line, costing minutes the same as any other call.
The only part that may run over your data plan would be SMS through GV, and I highly doubt a text message is causing any kind of strain on the data network.
WHY DOESN'T THE FCC ASK HOW A TEXT MESSAGE DOESN'T COUNT AS \"DATA\" ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
@thaShady: Mainly, Texts and \"Data\" run on different networks. If you don't want to pay for texts, install aim or msn or yahoo or whatever on your smartphone and send messages through the data network.
Why does MS get in trouble for pre-installing IE, but Apple can pre-install Safari? Riddle me this...
@thaShady: Because the lawsuit dates back many many many years ago when Netscape and other browsers were still around, and Apple/Safari were a small potion of what they are today. Additionally, back in the old days, it was near impossible to remove IE if you did not want it.
If it is any comfort, Microsoft is really sticking it to the EU because of a similar IE Pre-installed suit. Windows 7 in the EU will not come with a web browser (unless the EU backs off of its lawsuit)
The iPhone(TM) is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.(R). It's wireless data service is a copyrighted registered trademark of AT&T, Inc. They hold claim to all intellectual property contained therein, except where such data is protected by relevant privacy laws or if they have explicitly chosen to surrender these rights. Complaining that a product/service owned/operated by Google(TM), Inc. cannot be used with a product owned by Apple and a service operated by AT&T is so outrageous it's not worth taking seriously. You are under contract with AT&T and Apple, using their copyrighted products and services. Even expecting to able to use any third-party software is ridiculous, but Apple and AT&T do allow this when it's deemed to be in their fiscal interests. How one could possibly come to the conclusion that supporting, and therefore implicitly endorsing, a Google product would be a financially sound decision on the part of either company in regard to the iPhone is beyond me. For all intents and purposes, Apple and AT&T own the iPhone, you're just renting it. Unhappy with AT&T? Sucks for you. Unhappy with Apple? Sucks for you. They're laughing all the way to bank at all the saps who just had to have the latest and oh-so greatest gadget, to the exclusion of any better judgment or critical thought.
You bought a copyrighted product. You contracted for a copyrighted service. Your right to complain ended the moment you handed over that stack of 20s without reading the fine print, or knowing better than to expect a private company to support or tolerate any form of competition.
BTW Halfdeaddavid, you're comparing two dissimilar things. The iPhone, as the name sort of implies, is a phone. Behind the fancy screen and the big harddrive and the fancy firmware, it's a cell-phone. It's no more or less a computer than any cell-phone. It runs on a cell-phone network from a cell-phone company. Any and every mobile device (smaller than a laptop) that you care to name has software limitations built in to the operating system/firmware. But this is beside the point: If Microsoft felt like doing so, it could tomorrow decide that no Mozilla software can be run on its OSs, or, if you prefer, any software from... Symantec, Sun, Adobe, Google, etc. Good luck to them in enforcing such a ban, but I think you get the idea. No where is there a law that an OS must support x, y, and z products, they generally aim to do so because it makes the most financial sense - this is an issue with which Apple is famously involved. The closest you can get to a guarantee to not artificially impose limitations on support for software (or hardware) is to go open-source, but there historically hasn't been much incentive there for broad compatibility for a host of reasons.
I would imagine that at some point one would need to say no to an app. which seems to be perfect.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-71483-100x100.png\")
2000 fart apps, 300 calculators, 40 levels and they say that Google Voice is a \"duplicate\"? C'mon Apple!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-161466-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-274178-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116444-100x100.png\")
Don't get me wrong, I like Apple, but its about time someone came down on them and AT&T.
@paulh_5: I don't personally have one since I don't want to pay for a monthly bill, but I am happy how far apple has raised the expectations in a phone. It really is amazing how much you can do on the iphone. That being said, I am happy to see the FCC because the current system of apply almost arbitrarily accepting and rejecting apps is getting silly. If the network (I'm looking at your AT&T) can't handle the traffic that the iPhone creates and all of its apps creates, maybe they shouldn't be allowed exclusive rights to the iPhone. Plus you know, it is always good for the consumers pocketbooks to have competition among carriers for the same product.
@paulh_5: I agree. I like Apple too but this iPhone business almost seems to be a different company. Especially when they protect the iPhone to the exclusion of the iPod Touch.
@paulh_5: You like Apple? huhwhatwhyhow?