"If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."
-Obi Wan

This means that Apple is deliberately stifling innovation for no reason other than it is not their own innovation.

@Nakko: Oppression. It just works.

@Nakko: And we're at all surprised?

Ummm...why is it that everyone in the world seems to have missed the notion that the Apple App Store isn't an open market?

Why is it that anyone is surprised that Apple gets to pick and choose what is or isn't offered in the App Store? It's not a public service, and it's not answerable to the will of the people...it's a proprietary service controlled by a private company.

...trot into your local Target and set up a table and start selling crap. See where that gets you. Or, complain about the fact that Target won't let you set up a table in their store and start selling crap.

WTF people?

@Thassodar: Your powers are weak old man.

@Preyfar: Or, stifling innovation. There's an app for that.

@YouDidWhatNow?: But by having an app store where private developers can sell things apple have invited people to set up a table. They are just picky about the process of whose table they let in.

@YouDidWhatNow?: Or to look at it another way, what you are calling a table, other people call shelves. You know, the ones with the products on. Either way your analogy is pretty weak.

If APPLE is the one to blame, then the FCC cannot come down on them as HARD because they are not a "communications company".

...but if ATT is the one to blame, the FCC could come down on them HARD because they are a large communications company.

So it is in ATT's best interest to negotiate with Apple to have Apple take the fall on this?

politics ftw

@Preyfar: Well it sucks because I have an iPhone and I am on Google Voice. I'm directly affected.

@citizensmith:

No, it's iron-clad. In that case, it's like a comic book convention, which I ahve a lot of experience doing. Somebody runs the convention - they have X amount of space for dealers. That guy is still just a private guy...he answers to nobody, and if you want to get in the convention, you have to play by his rules - of which there may be none.

He may not sell you a dealer space because he doesn't like what you're selling. Or, it might be because there's too many other dealers selling the same thing. Or maybe he doesn't like *you*. Maybe he flipped a coin.

In the end, the point is that it doesn't matter why you weren't granted access to dealer space. Or in this case, why you weren't allowed to sell your app in the App Store. The guy/company in charge doesn't like it for one reason or another, and that's that. Apple, like the guy running the convention, has no reason whatsoever to not pick and choose what goes in the App Store for whatever reasons trip their whimsy.

Same goes for Target and it's shelves. Just because I have a product that people *would* buy, and it seems like it ought to be on Target shelves, Target buyers have not the slightest compulsion to actually put my product on their shelves. As a vendor who got snubbed by Target, I have no basis at all to complain that they don't want to sell my product. It's not an open market, and it's not a public service - therefore, it's up to them to decide what they do with it.

Basically, consumers/developers ARE NOT ENTITLED to buy/sell whatever apps they want to in the App Store. It's controlled by Apple. And Apple can do precisely whatever it wants to with it's App Store for any reason it wants to - or for no reason at all. And nobody hase any basis to complain...period.

@YouDidWhatNow?: Did you miss the part where Apple claims what you have said is not true?

@SnowingCookies:

...there would be no "fall" for Apple to take. The only way the FCC could do anything about this would be if they somehow deteremined that AT&T was stifling competition unfairly...on the Apple side of the equation, no one can force Apple to sell something they don't want to have in their store.

@citizensmith: The "Stifling Innovation" app was blocked from the app store. So there is an app for that, but it's "Pending Review".

Actually, the long arm of the government isn't stopped due to an innocuous difference such as the one you mention.. maybe they'll just shove it over to the DoJ or the FTC..?

Apple designs some wicked cool products, and I do love their stuff, but boy oh boy they are starting to make Microsoft look like the better of the 2 companies..

From their founder's leadership on down, it really looks like Microsoft is going to be remembered for doing more 'good' when the history is retold (e.g. the Gates Foundation, etc.. what has Jobs done with his wealth? Or Woz for that matter, well, except for the Segway polo stuff..)

@YouDidWhatNow?: Blah blah blah, nobody missed that. Everyone knows it's not an open market. The present status is not in dispute.

Your tired example is weak because there I'm not locked into a two-year contract for a device where Target is the sole purveyor, gatekeeper, and arbiter of what crap is available to me.

Some customers, journalists/bloggers, investors, and other concerned individuals would like it to be more open and transparent. Is Apple obligated to satisfy anyone's wishes? Of course not. But just because Apple isn't obligated to bow to pressure doesn't mean people aren't free to make their case to the court of public opinion in the hopes of affecting Apple's ways.

As for the FCC, they're just investigating at this point. I'm not sure I have a problem with that. It doesn't seem like Apple, AT&T, or Google have done anything wrong at this point, but there are some questions that need answering.

@Michael Belisle:

"But just because Apple isn't obligated to bow to pressure doesn't mean people aren't free to make their case to the court of public opinion in the hopes of affecting Apple's ways."

...that is it right there. Feel free to complain to Apple all you want...

"Everyone knows it's not an open market. The present status is not in dispute."

...that part absolutely is *not* well understood. It is clear that people think that Apple should somehow be forced to sell stuff on it's App Store that it doesn't want to. Some huge idea of entitlement that I just don't understand.

@Nakko: No, they're not stifling innovation solely because it's not theirs. Lots of innovative Apps that provide similar functionality are/were present on the App Store.

They're cockblocking Google because Google is a serious and credible threat to the iPhone. They're trying to avoid creating another Microsoft. See History of Computing, Chapter 6: Microsoft Corners the Market, where you'll read about how Microsoft Word was a premier launch app on the original Macintosh and thereby nearly destroyed the Macintosh from the inside.

@strathmeyer:

...uh, sure. Why don't you point it out to me?

@YouDidWhatNow?:

I completely agree with you although I don't think you'll find many supporters here. I have not read the Apple App Store ToS, but I assume it contains a clause whereby they have the final say as to any app that goes into the store.

Your analogy of setting up a table in a store is not a weak one. If I have a great product I want to sell at a store, I have to first convince that store that the product is worth selling on their shelves. If their buyers don't feel it's worth it, or doesn't fit the store's image they won't buy any from you. You better believe if I approach Target with Wal-Mart branded merchanside, they will likely not place it on their shelves.

That last point is another issue with this whole Apple/Google/AT&T thing. Apple is concerned that once you start using Google Voice, you can IM, text, and make phone calls from a Google userface environment. From a branding perspective, they lose control over the main functions of the phone to the Google exprience. I don't have the quote with me, but they've acknowledged this was one of the hang ups of the deal.

The only possible issue I see is that this may be anti-competitive if there was some collusion between Apple and AT&T to block VoIP applications to keep cellular prices high.

AT&T's customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T's cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone.

Two Words: Sling Media.

I call BS

Your concerns over what you do with the goods you purchase are very important to us, and will be answered in the order received. You are currently the 75th caller, please continue to hold. We value your opinions, please keep paying your overpriced bill every month and buying every new useless gadget we produce. Thank you, an operator will verbally abuse you momentarily.

Most of the stuff people like about the iphone is done on the G1 why don't ppl just use that?

ugh, apple and AT&T need to get their $hi- together, when they rejected spoofapp was my last straw:

After 192 days Apple has finally rejected SpoofApp.

"We've reviewed SpoofApp and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store at this time because it allows users to anonymously make calls and/or wrongly identifies the caller ID of the phone (known as Caller ID spoofing). We have chosen to not publish this type of application to the App Store." - iPhone Developer Program.

This business that they haven't rejected GoogleVoice or voip aps, they're just 'reveiwing' them and it takes away 'phone functionality' is b.s.

@Skankingmike: It's called "Competing with the Jones". Rich, smug, arrogant neighbors do it and so do high-school technology geeks burning a hole in their parents wallet.

Radically changes the way calls are made? That's BS. On the android, you can set it to use google voice on every call, never, or ask you right before you make a call.

@Lucky225: Anonymous Internet: Good! Anonymous Phone Calls: Bad!
Yet another reason I will never own an apple product. God forbid I should miss all of those wonderful telemarketers and crank callers from bothering me.

There are so many contradictions in their reasoning I don't even know where to start. And since I can't do anything about it anyway, I'll just stomp my feet and whine a little bit, than continue using my iPhone as I am permitted.
Hopefully one day Apple will realize that with 20 million iPhones sold, limiting their functionality just because they are jealous that Google has more innovative software is a bad idea. All this creates is 20 million non-returning customers.

Math Take Away: the evilness of 2 big businesses together is more than the sum of their parts, it creates an exponential increase in suck.

@YouDidWhatNow?: You should type this up and send it to the FCC, Seriously, someone should let them know that the app store isn't a free market. and they can let the rest of the world know.

@YouDidWhatNow?: It is clear that people think that Apple should somehow be forced to sell stuff on it's App Store that it doesn't want to.

Who said that?

@riverstyxxx: Anonymous Phone Calls: Bad! Yet another reason I will never own an apple product.

I do not think the words you used mean what you think they mean:

1) Apple rejects his spoof app and you feel spoofing "anonymous" calling is bad, yet you somehow turn that into YARIWNOAP?

2) Blocking display of your number is a standard cell phone feature that lets you make anonymous calls, out of the box.

The notion that Apple is worried about Google having too much "power" over the iPhone is ridiculous. The web search, map, and YouTube apps are all Apple-provided apps; Apple controls these apps using licensed technology from their partner Google.

The only power Google has comes when its time to renegotiate the licenses, a power that stems from the sophistication and popularity of Google's services, which is exactly why Apple included them in the phone in the first place. But YouTube can hardly be considered a key iPhone app for most people, and Apple could easily let users select their own web search engine; maps is the only important Google-centric app on the iPhone, and I'm sure TomTom et al would be happy to give Google a run for their money.

Without Google, all Apple has left is the most sophisticated, easiest-to-use handheld operating system, web browser, calendar, contacts, as well as 65,000 other applications (only half of which involve bodily noises). There's no doubt that the iPhone is better because of Apple's partnership with Google, but the notion that Google has "power" over the iPhone is nonsense; if anyone at Apple really thinks this, they should get out more.

On the other hand, Apple's contention that Google Voice requires intense "study" is equally ridiculous. I'm sure we haven't heard the real reason it was excluded.

Somebody call the Wahmbulance.

@Michael Belisle:

Yes, however with things like TrapCall (trapcall.com) which works on any cellphone, callers can get your real cellphone number, which is why there is a need for things like spoofapp and googlevoice.

@Michael Belisle: So if Google is interested on laying a smack down on Apple, why not abandon iphone apps altogether and focus on non-Apple projects?

@SnowingCookies: It is the federal government though. Assuming perhaps that the FCC could not do anything, it may be possible for the FTC to do something (anti-competitive???).

It is not uncommon for government agencies to work together to accomplish the same goal. For example, if the FDA finds a counterfeit drug on the market, they need to conduct an investigation, determine what health risks might exist, after months of investigation, they might be able to prosecute against the manufacturer. Alternately, the FDA can go to the Intellectual Property division of the Dept. of Commerce and tell them that there is some fake (insert famous drug name here) on the market. DOC can go to the manufacturer that owns the trademark and ask them if the suspected fake pills are theirs, if the manufacturer says no, the burden of proof has been established and the DOC can go after the manufacturer of the fake drugs and get them off the market. The net result is the same, the fake and potentially dangerous drugs are off the market, but because of the laws surrounding different agencies, it may be faster and easier to let a different agency prosecute.

@Skankingmike: Speaking only for myself: 1) I think the G1 is ugly 2) I like having rollover minutes 3) I don't want a slider phone 4) The G1 doesn't have access to all of the apps available thru iTunes and the app store.

If you don't like how google is treated don't buy an iphone or renew your subscription. There are many alternatives available, most of them are cheaper. Personally I can do everything that an iphone does only better, faster, and cheaper with a laptop and a tethered cell phone but I work mostly from my car.

Whats funny is how close Google and Apple people are at trade shows. At OSCON, for instance, all the Google guys are showing off their apps running on Apple notebooks, and Apple folks are hugging and kissing the Google folks onstage. I guess it's just a big charade though, since they can't manage to get along in this context. Given that this latest frakkus broke out after OSCON, I'd say it's a matter of timing and by next year they'll all be smooching each other onstage again.

@dragonfire81: The answer to that question depends on who you think has more to lose: Apple, by rejecting Google applications? Or Google, by ignoring the platform that has a monopoly on smartphone mindshare right now?

@citizensmith:

So you're saying that Target doesn't have the right to control what it sells on it's shelves?

@Michael Belisle: However with SpoofApp it's not just anonymous calling, it's trick/spoof dialing. I had it on my old jailbroken 1G and used it to call my friend while the caller ID showed his girlfriends number. Also, it had a voice modulator too, so I could disguise my voice. I inevitably deleted the app as the power that thing has is far too great for people to handle.

It wouldn't be long until some kid is calling someones house and the caller ID shows "FBI", gets arrested for impersonating a federal officer, is arrested, and Apple gets sued because of it (God forbid people take responsibility for their own actions).

I would prefer that over some genius telemarketer comes up with a way to search peoples online friends (mysapce, fb), search that persons number through yellowpages, and makes calls to them with that persons number on caller ID. No one would be safe after that.

I also remember the devs site claiming that the legality of it was still under investigation, but since nothing had been concluded at the time it was still "OK". Literally nothing good can come from an application like that being readily available to the general iPhone public. Other services do exist, but not many know about it. The kind of exposure that would come with it being in the AppStore would be devastating.

@madog:

The legality is not in question, it's 100% legal else companies like SpoofCard that spoofapp goes through would be out of business. In fact Florida had a State law that was overturned as unconstitutional as it sought to regulate interstate commerece and was a violation of the commerece clause of the constitution. The scenarios you mention are ridiculous. Just like any other thing in life, it is the user who is responsible for their actions. Guns don't kill people, people do. Spoofing is 100% legal and has it's uses, even googlevoice uses caller ID spoofing to spoof your google voice number and not your real cellphone number. Spoofing calls has it's purpose and as long as you're not using it to do things that would be illegal regardless of weather or not the call was spoofed in the first place, then there's no liability on anyone's part. And if someone uses it to do something illegal you might as well say apple/at&t would be liable for the user being able to press *67 so their number doesn't show up on the call, it's hogwash, spoofed or not people are going to do stupid things, don't blame the app.

@humphrmi: I thought they banned the Sling player though?

@blueneon:
1) Ok...how about the MyTouch/G2?
2) I like my unlimited minutes
3) See #1
4) Wow...just wow. You're apparently missing the HUGE issue here. Obviously, the iTunes app store doesn't have all the apps available at the Android marketplace. Not only that, but iTunes can restrict what does/doesn't show up in their app store. Otoh, the Android Marketplace is basically a "suggestion" of apps to get, and Google encourages you to get apps from wherever you'd like (just like..I dunno, you can do on a computer?).

Of course, I guess I'm without the hordes of bestselling fart apps on the iPhone, and that beer drinking one.

@Lucky225: First of all, quite a few of your posts deal with Sp*of card. Not only that, but all your posts read like they are intended to be marketing/generate SEO benefits on google.

Add that to the fact that your company (I say your company, based on this line "We've reviewed SpoofApp and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application")
continuously astroturfs on Digg, and I say we have ourselves a shill.... DIAF

@SnowingCookies: true, there is certainly some maneuvering going on here, but this isn't without peril for apple. fcc also holds a certain amount of power over the devices that people use to communicate & has largely favored the consumer over the manufacturer in cases like these.

they may keep the right to block GV, but they might lose the right to keep their hardware padlocked. i could certainly see the fcc mandating that they get to maintain rule over their app store provided they assist customers in the process to "jailbreak" if they desire to use apps that apple refuses to provide.