Apple pulling ALL google voice apps from appstore

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Kmax82
so you're still paying for ... SMS.

You're not, that's why. SMS is a massive cash-cow for the carriers: $.40 total to send a message along a control channel that has to be active anyhow. With the minimal amount of backend equipment needed to run it, SMSes are practically free for the carrier.

GV allows you to bypass this and send/receive SMSes freely*. If this took off, it would murder AT&T's profits. It also doesn't help that with GV you can do international calling VoIP style (call an in-nation number, VoIP out to another nation for cheap), which means AT&T misses out on collection it's admittedly much smaller profits on international calling.

They love the business the iPhone, but the idea of users using more data and paying less at the same time when they're already overloading their networks scares the hell out of them.

* There are other apps in the store that already allow this, but GV is the first one with enough backing to significantly disrupt AT&T

 

[Nothinman]

How is this not illegal? Antitrust? Monopoly? Anything?

It's Apple's store, they get to decide what to sell there. Do you think they should be forced to sell Zunes in their physical stores too? Not that monopolies are illegal but they don't even have a monopoly, you're free to change phones at any time.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Kmax82
so you're still paying for ... SMS.

You're not, that's why. SMS is a massive cash-cow for the carriers: $.40 total to send a message along a control channel that has to be active anyhow. With the minimal amount of backend equipment needed to run it, SMSes are practically free for the carrier.

GV allows you to bypass this and send/receive SMSes freely*. If this took off, it would murder AT&T's profits. It also doesn't help that with GV you can do international calling VoIP style (call an in-nation number, VoIP out to another nation for cheap), which means AT&T misses out on collection it's admittedly much smaller profits on international calling.

They love the business the iPhone, but the idea of users using more data and paying less at the same time when they're already overloading their networks scares the hell out of them.

* There are other apps in the store that already allow this, but GV is the first one with enough backing to significantly disrupt AT&T

I can think of at least 10 apps on the app store that give you free SMS. Some even support push.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Kmax82
so you're still paying for ... SMS.

You're not, that's why. SMS is a massive cash-cow for the carriers: $.40 total to send a message along a control channel that has to be active anyhow. With the minimal amount of backend equipment needed to run it, SMSes are practically free for the carrier.

GV allows you to bypass this and send/receive SMSes freely*. If this took off, it would murder AT&T's profits. It also doesn't help that with GV you can do international calling VoIP style (call an in-nation number, VoIP out to another nation for cheap), which means AT&T misses out on collection it's admittedly much smaller profits on international calling.

They love the business the iPhone, but the idea of users using more data and paying less at the same time when they're already overloading their networks scares the hell out of them.

* There are other apps in the store that already allow this, but GV is the first one with enough backing to significantly disrupt AT&T

I can think of at least 10 apps on the app store that give you free SMS. Some even support push.

From Sean Kovacs' (GV Mobile dev) blog:

So we?ve all been pondering this? at least I have, after initially laughing in the face of the Apple guy that called.
Check this out?
A breakout of features GV Mobile offers vs. other apps:

Dialing
? Pros: Can dial people via your GV number with ease (via contacts or keypad)
? Cons: Still uses AT&T minutes unless you tie it together with another app like TruPhone or any other SIP client
? Apps that do this and still on App Store:
o These apps offer FREE calling: Skype, iCall, fring, TruPhone, others
o These apps are virtually identical to what GV Mobile did for Google Voice: RingCentral, maybe others?

SMS
? Pros: Send and receive messages for FREE
? Cons: Have to manually open the app and refresh to see any new SMS messages
? Apps that do this and still on App Store: Skype, TextFree Unlimited/Lite, FreeSMS, Texter, Unlimited SMS, Text-for-Free, ?. okay there are probably 50 that do the same thing, these are the more popular ones. Some of these do push notifications ? so it?s just like the native iPhone app!!

Voicemail
? Pros: An easy to use interface (thanks Apple!) for visually listening to voicemails ? very similar to the native iPhone app
? Cons: Have to manually open the app and refresh to see any new voicemails
? Apps that do this and still on App Store: RingCentral, maybe others?

So now we know there are apps still on the App Store that duplicate existing iPhone features - as GV Mobile does. Why does it look like Apple/AT&T are only targeting Google? Hmm

 

[silverpig]

Heh, maybe 4chan should be set loose on AT&T again

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Kmax82
so you're still paying for ... SMS.

You're not, that's why. SMS is a massive cash-cow for the carriers: $.40 total to send a message along a control channel that has to be active anyhow. With the minimal amount of backend equipment needed to run it, SMSes are practically free for the carrier.

GV allows you to bypass this and send/receive SMSes freely*. If this took off, it would murder AT&T's profits. It also doesn't help that with GV you can do international calling VoIP style (call an in-nation number, VoIP out to another nation for cheap), which means AT&T misses out on collection it's admittedly much smaller profits on international calling.

They love the business the iPhone, but the idea of users using more data and paying less at the same time when they're already overloading their networks scares the hell out of them.

* There are other apps in the store that already allow this, but GV is the first one with enough backing to significantly disrupt AT&T

I can think of at least 10 apps on the app store that give you free SMS. Some even support push.

You're looking for rational and equivalent behavior where there is none. As I've already stated before, the difference is that Google has enough power to significantly diminish AT&T's business. The other guys don't.

 

[silverpig]

Apple admits it was AT&T:

http://www.seankovacs.com/inde...tt-pulled-all-gv-apps/

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I called apple and was issued a refund for both GV Mobile and VoiceCentral. I know that it hurts the guys who wrote the software, but it is the principle of it. I want apple to see how many people are pissed off by this. I also don't want to spend money on unsupported software. If apple wants to pull something from the store, then I want my money back because it must obviously be defective right? (Sarcasm meter)

That hurts the devs bad though:

"Yes? Sean received 70% of the $2.99 you paid for his product. If you request a refund, Sean will have to pay 100% of the 2.99 back. He?ll pay more than he received.
The product still works, I?m keeping it. And even if it didn?t work, I would refund. It?s not fair to Sean."

 

[sourceninja]

Well, if Sean has a problem with it, he should sue apple. Maybe go into a joint lawsuit with the guys from voicecentral. Worst case, he will learn not to develop for the iphone anymore and it will scare off all small developers. That would either force apple's hand, or kill the iphone. Win Win for the consumer.

I hate to do this, because I too am a small developer. But this is the risk and the cost of doing business in the walled garden. While the app still works, I'm not getting everything I paid for. I bought the app under the assumption it will receive updates, be downloadable in the future, and be supported on the phone. This is obviously no longer the case.

I am now using Google voice via safari. If I decide to jailbreak my phone again for GV Mobile, I will donate 5.00 to Sean (which is what I think the app is worth), unless of course VoiceCentral comes to Cydia then I will pay those guys (I like their application much more, but I bought GV Mobile first).

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
Well, if Sean has a problem with it, he should sue apple. Maybe go into a joint lawsuit with the guys from voicecentral. Worst case, he will learn not to develop for the iphone anymore and it will scare off all small developers. That would either force apple's hand, or kill the iphone. Win Win for the consumer.

I hate to do this, because I too am a small developer. But this is the risk and the cost of doing business in the walled garden. While the app still works, I'm not getting everything I paid for. I bought the app under the assumption it will receive updates, be downloadable in the future, and be supported on the phone. This is obviously no longer the case.

I am now using Google voice via safari. If I decide to jailbreak my phone again for GV Mobile, I will donate 5.00 to Sean (which is what I think the app is worth), unless of course VoiceCentral comes to Cydia then I will pay those guys (I like their application much more, but I bought GV Mobile first).

You're mad at apple, but this doesn't hurt apple at all. They've got their money and they're keeping it. You're effectively taking 90 cents away from Sean because AT&T wanted Apple to remove his app.

 

[Nothinman]

You're mad at apple, but this doesn't hurt apple at all. They've got their money and they're keeping it. You're effectively taking 90 cents away from Sean because AT&T wanted Apple to remove his app.

And if you piss off enough of their developers maybe Apple will get the hint. Their major advertising campaign is "There's an app for that", well not any more.

 

[slugg]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Their major advertising campaign is "There's an app for that", well not any more.

That made me LOL!

We need to make a fake commercial. "Need to check your voicemail? Well, there WAS an app for that. Need to send a picture message? There's an app for that if you don't have AT&T."

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

You're mad at apple, but this doesn't hurt apple at all. They've got their money and they're keeping it. You're effectively taking 90 cents away from Sean because AT&T wanted Apple to remove his app.

And if you piss off enough of their developers maybe Apple will get the hint. Their major advertising campaign is "There's an app for that", well not any more.

But the thing is you still WANT the developers. Consumers driving developers away from a platform means there will be less quality software for that platform. Consumers with the platform lose.

Besides, this app was developed by a guy. $2.99 isn't much to you, but 1000 x $0.90 is a lot to a guy.

 

[Nothinman]

But the thing is you still WANT the developers. Consumers driving developers away from a platform means there will be less quality software for that platform. Consumers with the platform lose.

Which is why it puts pressure on Apple to reconsider their stupidity.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

But the thing is you still WANT the developers. Consumers driving developers away from a platform means there will be less quality software for that platform. Consumers with the platform lose.

Which is why it puts pressure on Apple to reconsider their stupidity.

...Or you could just ask for compensation and not a refund

They got store credit so as not to hurt the dev.

Apple is still losing the dev to cydia, the dev keeps his money, apple is out some sales. THIS is a "consumers win" situation, or at least as best as can be expected.

 

[Nothinman]

5 free songs costs Apple how much? A quarter?

 

[sourceninja]

Why would I want credits for the app store? I'm done buying apps on the app store and I only buy music from the amazon store. Apples policies have made it clear that the app store is worthless. I'm not going to invest money in products that can disappear at the whim of apple. Hell, it's not about the money, it's about the principle of it. I lost more then 5.00 of my time getting a refund on those two applications.

To me I did a few things. I voiced my concerns to apple via their submission form and via my support call. I forced 2 apple employee's to spend 35 minutes of their time to refund me $5.00. I also at the same sent a clear message to small developers. Stay clear of the iPhone until apple changes it's policies, it's too dangerous.

I myself am a small developer. When we found out that if apple issues a refund we have to eat the full cost and not just our profit, we promptly decided to abandon our iPhone project and instead research writing the app for other phone instead. We don't have the clout to fight apple, or the cash to handle a hit like that.

The end result is that developers (like me) are going to be too scared to even try to develop for the iphone. Apple and at&t will either wake up and lower the barrier of entry and put our minds at ease, or the phone's biggest feature (imho) will become a barren wasteland and we will all move on to something that meets our while encouraging and protecting developers.

So I guess I'm saying I want this to hurt the developers. I want a huge horror story about how small time developers with good products got destroyed by apple. It's the only way all the other developers out there are going to wake up and the only way apple is going to change.

 

[mugs]

:laugh: @ sourceninja. You are a true patriot, sir.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
5 free songs costs Apple how much? A quarter?

The last estimation I saw was that 80-90 cents per dollar at the iTMS goes to the labels. So 5 free songs would cost Apple $4, at a minimum.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
5 free songs costs Apple how much? A quarter?

A refund costs them nothing...

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
Why would I want credits for the app store?

*snip*

Well your first post about getting a refund implied you didn't even really care about the money, and that it was more a matter of principle. You getting a refund took nothing from apple and $3 from the dev. You voiced your displeasure in a few ways which was definitely a good thing.

If you had gotten the credits instead, the dev would still have his money, apple would be out $4 (according to ViRGE) in future profits (you could give the credits away instead of using them yourself), and you'd still have voiced your displeasure.

I'm not saying what you did is wrong, it just sucks more for the dev and I feel for the guy.

Anywho, your post is still pretty important as I think a lot of devs are feeling the same way you are, and Apple is about to find out about it.

 

[Nothinman]

A refund costs them nothing...

Enough of them costs them developers which is what they should really be caring about. $4 here and there means nothing to them, 4 fewer developers could cost them a lot in the long run.

 

[Tegeril]

Originally posted by: Kaido
Boo! Way to pull a Kindle on us!

This is quite distinctly different than the Kindle scenario. My GV Mobile app still works fine on my phone. Nothing was taken off of my device.

 

[Nothinman]

My GV Mobile app still works fine on my phone. Nothing was taken off of my device.

For now...

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

My GV Mobile app still works fine on my phone. Nothing was taken off of my device.

For now...

Apple has never used the nuclear option thus far, including on more infamous applications like Netshare and that porn viewer. The idea that they would use it on GV Mobile is silly.