Boot Camp Shows Apple's iPhone Defense is Bunk
Monday, August 24, 2009 at 7:13AM 
While you were out enjoying the weekend (hopefully), we were here digesting Apple and AT&T's response to the FCC's query regarding the "rejection" of the Google Voice app.
If you haven't heard, Apple clarifies, saying the app hasn't been rejected, but rather:
The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone. For example, on an iPhone, the “Phone” icon that is always shown at the bottom of the Home Screen launches Apple’s mobile telephone application, providing access to Favorites, Recents, Contacts, a Keypad, and Visual Voicemail. The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail. Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub—replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature.
Apple goes on to make more valid points, concerning the security of the transfer of the iPhone's contacts to/through Google. To be sure though, what you see above is their biggest concern with the App. The problem is, it just doesn't make any sense, especially when you consider one of Apple's other products.
Perhaps you're familiar with Boot Cam: Apple's utility allowing you to boot your mac into Windows if you install a copy on your Mac. The biggest concern with Google Voice is the manner in which it duplicates the functionality of the OS/apps Apple has placed on the phone, and yet Apple freely, and helpfully, includes the ability to completely duplicate the entire functionality of the OS on their computers.
Something just doesn't add up. Apple doesn't block Firefox from the Mac, because as much as they might want Safari to be the biggest browser, they know how foolish such a move would be. Why then would they reject an app for the iPhone that duplicates phone functions? Apple and AT&T both say AT&T has/had no say in this app rejection/further study. There's really no other rational reason for Apple to decline the app. If Apple truly believes they have created a superior dialing app/contact app, etc, then they shouldn't be bothered by an app that duplicates those functions. Let the consumer decide which is truly the better implementation.
And let's get away from this idea that the iPhone requires a special walled garden because it is a phone. The iPhone is not a phone, it's a lightweight netbook with 3G access. In the future this is how we will see every smartphone.
When you categorize it as a computer, this behavior can't be justified. Surely Apple wouldn't think that all the software for a computer should be approved by, and purchased through the maker of that computer exclusively. Then again, maybe they do...
Reader Comments (7)
Sorry but this is a stupid commentary. There is no "Boot Camp" for the iPhone, that exists for their Mac hardware. The iPhone is a consumer electronics device that, although it has some similarities, it is not a general purpose computer. Apples demands for the User Experience on that device are different than those of the Mac.
To clarify, Microsoft doesn't let you load other OS's on to the XBox. Sony limits what goes on the Playstation. You can't load some other form of linux on your BluRay player or settop box from your cable company.
"let's get away from this idea that the iPhone requires a special walled garden because it is a phone."
I agree, but Apple doesn't.
The rationale is simple: When I reach into my pocket and grab my phone to make a call, I expect it to work.
Take background apps as an example. Suppose I'm logged on to AIM and it's running a background app that collects messages for me, etc. That means it's using the cellphone radio, so my battery life equals my talk time.
So when I reach into my pocket and grab my phone, it's dead after 5 hours. Am I going to say, "Oops! Silly me! I left my iPhone connected to AIM and now my battery is dead. I guess I should have remembered to disconnect from AIM. Now where's that payphone?" Or are they going to say, "This ^*&#*&! iPhone battery sucks!"
So, no, I'm not carrying around a "lightweight netbook with 3G access." I'm carrying a phone.
Now that said, this is really neither here nor there in regards to the fact that Google Voice has a "dialer" which allows you dial a number. Apple's argument that people would be confused is ridiculous--if anything, having their own dialer makes it clearer (assuming that the dialer in Google Voice has some sort of branding that says you're using Google's dialer) because, if it's Google's dialer, you know you're using Google Voice. If it's not, you know you're using Apple's. As long as Google isn't going out of their way to make the dialer look like Apple's, I'd say that it's a good thing
Howdy,
Until I see a copy of the "rejection" notice sent to Google over Google Voice I think this is a non-issue.
I'd guess one has to decide if "no news" is good or bad.
Should one be upset that you can't buy a Target house brand item at Walmart? Is Walmart a "special walled garden" or is Target?
I think it's unfair that Apple doesn't sell a car with the styling and performanc of a Lambo, gas milage of a Prius, and the cost of a Hyundai Accent.
I think I'll go blog about it.
Apple is wrong here, and no amount of spin provided by the "Apple can do no wrong" crowd will change that.
Poster number one's argument boils down to "It isn't a mac, and everyone else can limit what's on their devices". Well, it's MY device, not Apple's -- I get to decide what should go on it. When Apple actually tried to make even the act of jailbreaking one's phone (such as I have) illegal, I knew they had started down the same path as Microsoft and other companies that limit what could be developed and sold for that device. "Everybody does it" doesn't make it right.
Poster number two: "I just want to work as a phone". Then why buy a smart phone at all? Sure, you're correct that there are tradeoffs -- but those are MY choice. I don't need Apple to tell me that background apps will run down the batter faster, I take that as the choice I make to get functionality I want or need.
Poster number 3 tries to posit that this is like complaining that Toyota doesn't sell Chevy's. No, it's like buying a Chevy and discovering that you're only permitted to put Chevy gas or oil into the car, and if I want to put in a radar detector -- well, not only would that void my warranty, you make it impossible to even try. Child's car seats and boosters, seat covers, dash covers, luggage racks ALL had to be purchased from a Chevy auto store and approved, model by model, by Chevy. After all, the user must be prevented from making the "wrong" (read: non-Chevy) choice!
The bottom line is simple, even for a 22 year Apple booster such as myself: When I here the phrase "duplicates functionality" I replace it with "provides competition". This is exactly the behavior we condemned AT&T (pre-breakup) and Microsoft for. Returning to poster 1's assertion that Apple has the right to make that determination for their user's because the iPhone "isn't the Mac" may want to consider what it would be like to be forbidden from installing FireFox over Safari, or even Open Office over the iWork suite. Even Microsoft didn't go as far as that!
It's my phone. It's my choice. No amount of tortured logic will change that.
Howdy John,
You made some good points but I think you're missing the "main" point.
Should Ford dealers be required to provide "shelf space" for Chevy grills?
Should BMW dealers be required to provide "floor space" for Yugo?
Should the new Window Store be required to carry Macintosh?
Should Apple Stores be required to carry Dells?
Should the John Halbig Quick Stop be required to carry Trash Can beer?
I'll bet your answer to this one would be an arrogant sounding @#$% No.
I think Apple should have sucked it up and said "It our "store" and we'll sell what we want to."
But that isn't very PC and might sound a bit "arrogant."
I applaud your jailbreaking of your iPhone. As you pointed "it's MY device, not Apple's" and now you can do what your darn well want to with it. Why shouldn't Apple have the same freedom with their app store.
The iPhone is NOT a market cornering product, it's one of hundreds of phone choices. It doen't have the market cornered such as AT&T or Microsoft did.
I only go back to the Mac LC (discounting the Apple IIs) so have "just" 19 years of Apple experience. I also owned Windows machines during that time. As much as I like to think the apple logo is a shiny gold color, it's not. There is no Good Apple or Bad Apple, no Good Microsoft or Bad Microsoft, just businesses.
We reward businesses with our money when we buy "iPods" or punish businesses by not buying "Zunes" but complaining that Toyota doesn't provide a Hemi option just doesn't make sense.
The main point is:
Should Apple be required to provide a "market space" for apps that could impact their buisness model?
I don't think so but then again I've voted straight Libertarian Party for as long as I've owned computers.
Apple has never pretended that the iPhone is an "open" system similar to the Mac or Windows PCs. Yes, you are welcome to jailbreak it and do whatever you want, just like people "jailbrake" X-boxes because they make a cheap PC.
Just don't expect any support from Apple. Google Voice sounds like a fantastic idea, but Apple will never hand over strategic parts of the iPhone OS or interface to someone else.
Microsoft pretended that Windows was a level playing field while it wiped out Netscape Navigator, Apple has never pretended the iPhone was a level playing field, especially concerning any apps that mess with iTunes, Safari, Contacts and Mail.
Well said Synthmeister!