Apple pulling ALL google voice apps from appstore

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: 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.

For now, but I could see them doing it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: 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.

For now, but I could see them doing it.

It's only there because they would use it, but it seems pretty clear that they only intend to use it with software that is actually destructive.

 

[Nothinman]

It's only there because they would use it, but it seems pretty clear that they only intend to use it with software that is actually destructive.

But destructive to what? AT&T's bottom line?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

It's only there because they would use it, but it seems pretty clear that they only intend to use it with software that is actually destructive.

But destructive to what? AT&T's bottom line?

The network or other software on the phone. Malicious code. Products that are hurt AT&T's bottom line have been removed from the App Store, but they haven't been removed from the phone.

 

[Nothinman]

The network or other software on the phone. Malicious code. Products that are hurt AT&T's bottom line have been removed from the App Store, but they haven't been removed from the phone.

I know what has been, I'm talking about what might be. If Apple has the ability to kill apps on your phone whos to say they won't use it in the future for things like this? If what ViRGE says about them killing a porn viewer is true I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

The network or other software on the phone. Malicious code. Products that are hurt AT&T's bottom line have been removed from the App Store, but they haven't been removed from the phone.

I know what has been, I'm talking about what might be. If Apple has the ability to kill apps on your phone whos to say they won't use it in the future for things like this? If what ViRGE says about them killing a porn viewer is true I wouldn't put it past them.

We don't know what they will do, but based on what we have seen we have no reason to believe that they will remove apps from people's phones because they hurt AT&T's bottom line.

I know you've never murdered anyone, but you're capable of murder. Should I assume you're going to murder someone in the future because you could?

I would be concerned if they had no valid reason for having the ability to kill apps, but they do have a valid reason - to stop malicious code. If they didn't have that need, I would wonder why they added that capability to the phone. But I'm not going to make assumptions about what they might do when they've given me no reason to believe they might do anything they haven't already done. And what they have already done is remove apps from the app store while letting people keep using them on their phones.

 

[Nothinman]

I know you've never murdered anyone, but you're capable of murder. Should I assume you're going to murder someone in the future because you could?

But I haven't murdered anyone at all while Apple has removed apps in the past according to ViRGE. If they're willing to remove Netshare and some porn viewer why not voice software? If I had killed a murderer then, yes, I would probably be likely to kill someone for other, maybe lesser crimes or maybe even things that I consider immoral that aren't technically illegal.

 

[mugs]

No, ViRGE said:

Apple has never used the nuclear option thus far, including on more infamous applications like Netshare and that porn viewer.

They didn't remove those apps from people's iPhones, they removed them from the App Store.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Nothinman

The network or other software on the phone. Malicious code. Products that are hurt AT&T's bottom line have been removed from the App Store, but they haven't been removed from the phone.

I know what has been, I'm talking about what might be. If Apple has the ability to kill apps on your phone whos to say they won't use it in the future for things like this? If what ViRGE says about them killing a porn viewer is true I wouldn't put it past them.

We don't know what they will do, but based on what we have seen we have no reason to believe that they will remove apps from people's phones because they hurt AT&T's bottom line.

I know you've never murdered anyone, but you're capable of murder. Should I assume you're going to murder someone in the future because you could?

I would be concerned if they had no valid reason for having the ability to kill apps, but they do have a valid reason - to stop malicious code. If they didn't have that need, I would wonder why they added that capability to the phone. But I'm not going to make assumptions about what they might do when they've given me no reason to believe they might do anything they haven't already done. And what they have already done is remove apps from the app store while letting people keep using them on their phones.

Malicious code??? They have a review process that makes it frustrating to get even a legit application passed. How would a Malicious one even get on there?

 

[Nothinman]

They didn't remove those apps from people's iPhones, they removed them from the App Store.

Sorry, I did read that wrong.

 

[gorcorps]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I understand why they pulled the app and denied GV. You're circumventing AT&T's service charges, while still using their service (for those on ATT). I don't understand why people are so bent out of shape about it. An app wasn't allowed that lets you text for free? Go fucking figure. If you can't afford it, don't use it.

 

[teiresias]

I don't think you quite know how GV was working. You don't circumvent any of AT&T's services. If someone were to call your Google number it rings your cell number and you're still using minutes on your AT&T plan. If you want to place a call via Google Voice the app basically sends the API calls to the GV services that then essentially calls you and the person you want to call and makes the connection - so you're still using your minutes on your AT&T plan.

I don't know enough about the texting, but there are plenty of IM app options on the phone that could be argued would eat into AT&Ts texting services, so I don't see how that's a real valid point.

 

[Parasitic]

Originally posted by: teiresias
I don't think you quite know how GV was working. You don't circumvent any of AT&T's services. If someone were to call your Google number it rings your cell number and you're still using minutes on your AT&T plan. If you want to place a call via Google Voice the app basically sends the API calls to the GV services that then essentially calls you and the person you want to call and makes the connection - so you're still using your minutes on your AT&T plan.

I don't know enough about the texting, but there are plenty of IM app options on the phone that could be argued would eat into AT&Ts texting services, so I don't see how that's a real valid point.

It's taking away from AT&T potential revenue in that, instead of using 1500 minutes on your primary iPhone line, you might be splitting it 5-way to 300 minutes among your iPhone, landline, work, wife's cell, kid's cell, etc. etc.

Nevertheless, AT&T is going about this in a dick way.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Parasitic

Originally posted by: teiresias
I don't think you quite know how GV was working. You don't circumvent any of AT&T's services. If someone were to call your Google number it rings your cell number and you're still using minutes on your AT&T plan. If you want to place a call via Google Voice the app basically sends the API calls to the GV services that then essentially calls you and the person you want to call and makes the connection - so you're still using your minutes on your AT&T plan.

I don't know enough about the texting, but there are plenty of IM app options on the phone that could be argued would eat into AT&Ts texting services, so I don't see how that's a real valid point.

It's taking away from AT&T potential revenue in that, instead of using 1500 minutes on your primary iPhone line, you might be splitting it 5-way to 300 minutes among your iPhone, landline, work, wife's cell, kid's cell, etc. etc.

Nevertheless, AT&T is going about this in a dick way.

That's not it at all. There are a number of reasons why this doesn't matter.

First, you can still use google voice on your iPhone through the web app.

Second, you can still use google voice on your iPhone through your home phone (call someone from home, then switch to your iPhone).

Google voice only takes away AT&T's SMS money, but the stupid thing is there are a ton of other apps out there that send free SMS message. AND you can still send free SMS messages using the web app (open safari, go to google.com/voice/m and there you go).

gorcorps: There are a number of reasons why people are bent out of shape. First, they allowed gv mobile to be on the App store for months. Why approve it only to remove it later? Second, Phil Schiller himself approved the app. Third, it doesn't really do anything that a million other apps on the app store don't already do. Fourth, you're not circumventing any of AT&T's service charges at all except for SMS, and there are other apps still on the app store which do this. Bottom line: it was already approved, and the removal is arbitrary and inconsistent with any of their rules and actions so far.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Malicious code??? They have a review process that makes it frustrating to get even a legit application passed. How would a Malicious one even get on there?

Does Apple review the source code? Even if they do, there's no way they could possibly review it to the extent that they'd catch every attempt to release malicious code.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Malicious code??? They have a review process that makes it frustrating to get even a legit application passed. How would a Malicious one even get on there?

Does Apple review the source code? Even if they do, there's no way they could possibly review it to the extent that they'd catch every attempt to release malicious code.

I'm just saying you are lucky if you can get a real useful legitimate app though their approval process before it is no longer relevant. A malicious app would be way more trouble then it is worth.

Better off just hacking via SMS ;-)

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: mugs
Does Apple review the source code?

They do not. They only review the compiled application.

 

[theeedude]

One more reason I am not getting one of these.

 

[silverpig]

Oh btw, the FCC is now involved and has sent letters to Google, Apple, and AT&T requesting information as to how this all works.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Oh btw, the FCC is now involved and has sent letters to Google, Apple, and AT&T requesting information as to how this all works.

It continues to amuse me just how much of an interest Congress has taken in the iPhone.

Anyhow, I'd hate to be AT&T right about now.:laugh:

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: silverpig
Oh btw, the FCC is now involved and has sent letters to Google, Apple, and AT&T requesting information as to how this all works.

It continues to amuse me just how much of an interest Congress has taken in the iPhone.

Anyhow, I'd hate to be AT&T right about now.:laugh:

Imagine if Obama had an iPhone...

 

[Kmax82]

As much as I hate this, Peter Rojas from GDGT said it best on Twitter last night...

"I think Apple is dumb to ban Google Voice from the iPhone, but does the FCC need to step in here? Shouldn't consumers decide this one? And don't MOST cellphones disallow Google Voice, in a sense, by not having apps at all? Is a phone maker obligated to offer apps? That there aren't lots of limits on apps is why I use a G1, if you don't like it, vote with your $$$ like @arrington. No one ever promised you Google Voice on your phone, if you want it, switch to someone who offers it. This is dumb for Apple, good for T-Mo. I'm not saying Apple did the right thing here; they did the wrong thing. But the right thing for us to do is to take our business elsewhere."

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Kmax82
As much as I hate this, Peter Rojas from GDGT said it best on Twitter last night...

"I think Apple is dumb to ban Google Voice from the iPhone, but does the FCC need to step in here? Shouldn't consumers decide this one? And don't MOST cellphones disallow Google Voice, in a sense, by not having apps at all? Is a phone maker obligated to offer apps? That there aren't lots of limits on apps is why I use a G1, if you don't like it, vote with your $$$ like @arrington. No one ever promised you Google Voice on your phone, if you want it, switch to someone who offers it. This is dumb for Apple, good for T-Mo. I'm not saying Apple did the right thing here; they did the wrong thing. But the right thing for us to do is to take our business elsewhere right after my 2 year contract is up or I pay the $175 ETF."

Fixed that for you.

 

[teiresias]

Originally posted by: Parasitic
It's taking away from AT&T potential revenue in that, instead of using 1500 minutes on your primary iPhone line, you might be splitting it 5-way to 300 minutes among your iPhone, landline, work, wife's cell, kid's cell, etc. etc.

That's like saying AT&T can stipulate in their contract that I'm not permitted to have a landline in my home provided by Verizon because that cuts into the amount of minutes I'd use on their plan. It's hardly a rationale any reasonable person would suggest.

All of this talk from other people about "voting with your wallet" is pretty ridiculous given the penalties for breaking a cellular contract. The FCC has jurisdiction over these sorts of matters, so I really don't see anything wrong with them getting involved

 

[sourceninja]

I am VERY much anti apple/AT&T right now, but the FCC has no business getting involved. The only thing the FCC should be doing (IMHO) is turning cell phones into blind data connections and getting rid of the idea of voice, text, and data being 3 separate billable things. But when it comes to what apps you are going to allow, and how you are going to decided what to put on your phone, the FCC should stay out of it.