Jump to content

Apple, Google, ATT and the FCC


Zimmer
 Share

Google, Apple, ATT and the FCC  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do you 'side' with?

    • Apple
      6
    • Google
      4
    • ATT (What little they have to do with this)
      0
    • FCC (What side?)
      1
    • Other
      1
    • They all need to stop bitching and moaning and stop asking 'big brother' to protect them!
      2


Recommended Posts

What are your guys/gals opinions on the whole Apple, Google FCC thing?

Mine?

I think that Google needs to stop wining. It is Apple's Platform they have the right to do what ever they see fit, and I don't see how they are being 'anti competitive', Google does have its own phone? Right? Apple shouldn't have to potentially lose customers itself? Isn't there goal to gain customers and if they feel that the Google Apps will jeopardize this, fine so be it, Apple loses a application that might attract users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple are in great danger of turning into a re-imaged 90's Microsoft, they are creating a monopoly with the iPhone platform and it won't end well for them or the consumour. Its sad to see people who regularly use the term Micro$oft supporting Apple when they are doing the same things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I only read the major tid bits but ok.. So basically Google called on the FCC because Apple has turned down the Google voice app.

I do side with google in my own little way... But you have to admit that there are two sides to this issue...

1. Apple's lucrative business practices surrounding the Apple store.

2. This is a pretty smart (though dickish,) ploy to free Iphone users from paying higher fees.

Ok, so here is my thoughts on this.

On the Apple side of things, you have to admit that they look at the apps from every angle to ensure it works properly, that there are not 10000 notepad, text, chat apps and things of that nature clogging the app store when the I-phone already has it built in, they do not want people intertwining with their own software to create back doors, and also they do not want major competitors competing with them on their own platform.

On the Google side of things, I feel this app is aimed a lot at the current I-phone users on the AT&T network because of the horrible service on that network. Also can people take their I-phone over to Verizon once the switch is made? I thought for some reason or another it could not. So with that in mind if that is the case then it is also a rejuvination for people with i-phones that do not want to stay on AT&T's service, but cannot take it with them to Verizon, (just read, no they cannot change the i-phone over because verizon does not use sim cards, unless they will reprogram the phone for you, but if it's anything like cellular south's service, then it's a big fat no). So with that in mind, that also casts some shame on Apple for not (or most probably will not) offer a way to get their phone transfered over, and of course not, because that way, you have to buy the I-phone AGAIN! For a lot of us that is a very big investment. I am still rolling with a standard style phone because not only are smart phones expensive, but the plans are too, so until I make some serious cash, I cant even think of having an I phone. So I do see the greedy side of Apple for this. But you really cant blame it on Verizon for it because it's not like they just recently went to the no sim card phones.

I say yay on Google's side of things, because not only A. does it free I-phone users from having to have AT&T's service, B. it will be a niche market anyways because most people even if they wanted to go wifi, cannot afford to do so because of low availability of wifi, and C. because hell.. People are just going to jail break their I-phone and put this app on it anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Apple on this, pretty much for the same reasons. It is their device and their platform and any ruling against apple on this could be catastrophic as it would basically say to developers and companies that they don't get to decide what gets done with their product. Soon we will need a government approval process for software. Then we all might as well swear allegiance to Big Brother (sorry, reading 1984 atm).

I could understand if the iPhone and the AppStore were the market leaders and they were blocking things like Google Voice, but even then it could be justified, but they are not the market leader, the iPhone and AppStore are still a minority so can't be a Monopoly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'll have to admit DarkBlueBox, that you have a very good point. Now as far as standing in court, unless someone pulls the ole OSX card about legalities (which I am sure that Apple covered at least twice on the I-Phone) then it will be thrown out in a heartbeat, if it even gets to court.

Personally though, I do not like Apple's business practices, but that is only because they slap legalities on hardware that they actually do not make, that conforms to everything else that the X86 archetecture is except for a tiny little chip that says to the software that it is an Apple. But that's on the desktop/laptop side of things. As far as the I-phone, I do feel that it is in fact their hardware, and definitely their software, so it is their phone, and by all means (unfortunately, but definitely lawfully) they have every right to say what can and cannot run on their phones. If anyone wants to really point fingers, I feel they should do that to all the other cell phone manufacturers (specially Motorolla and Kiocera) who intentionally come out with crappy phones to make their overpriced peices of junk sell more, and not for the people who just can't afford a smart phone, but for their hindering of what the phones they do make can do... But alas, especially Motorolla, that's obvious that they do create their own chips for it and to top it off, their software is specially written exactly for their chips (just wish they would get the coding right some day), so you really cant say anything about them either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they approve the Google App, they are going to have to deal with a shit storm for Devs because of their app's getting rejected for similar reasons. Rules are rules. Something some of my jack ass co-workers can't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Apple on this, pretty much for the same reasons. It is their device and their platform and any ruling against apple on this could be catastrophic as it would basically say to developers and companies that they don't get to decide what gets done with their product. Soon we will need a government approval process for software. Then we all might as well swear allegiance to Big Brother (sorry, reading 1984 atm).

I could understand if the iPhone and the AppStore were the market leaders and they were blocking things like Google Voice, but even then it could be justified, but they are not the market leader, the iPhone and AppStore are still a minority so can't be a Monopoly.

Agreed, I believe it will hurt Apple, with the socialist actions (Apple control), but hey I don't care it is perfectly fine, sorry but they have full control and they should, also I totally agree with the Big Brother thing (it tends to shape a lot of my views) (socialist control).

Me thinks this will now become political to :-). I tend to do that :-)

Also monopolies are easily broken by the people, IF (rather big if in some situations but still never does it force you into not) your willing to boycott it totally (no business can survive, with no money (let alone profit)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.

Socialism does not mean what you think it does.

I want people to look at it this way, what would you say if Microsoft refused to allow Yahoo Messenger or Chrome to run on Windows because it competed with the functionality it provided via Live Messenger or Internet Explorer? There would be uproar. As it is Microsoft have been forced to provide versions of Windows that do not include Internet Explorer or Media Player because it is seen to be anti-competitive.

Developers already face limits to what they can do with there applications due to anti-trust laws, and for good reason. Look at the original iPhone and iPod Touch, which were 100% locked down platforms. They were jailbroken (the inclusion of the term "jail" should say something in itself) and Apple are still attempting to have the practice made illegal [1] [2]. Going back to the Windows example I used earlier, this would be akin to Microsoft making it a criminal offense to install an application you have created yourself on your own computer. Or, for Microsoft/Intel to make it a criminal offense to run Linux on your computer.

With the Google Voice issue, it basically comes down to the problem with network exclusivity deals with handset manufacturers and networks. This is another issue that the FCC will quite rightly be taking a close look at. The very fact that in order to purchase a particular type of phone you are forced to choose a particular operator is itself anti-competitive. Google voice is designed to untie your mobile phone from a particular operator, and this is something that the current networks are very afraid of. Just look at the increasing length of phone contracts, which have gone from 12 months, to 18 and 24months.

The biggest issue here is that Apple lied about the rejection process [1] [2], and its not a new thing. A quick google will bring up hundreds of examples of Apple rejecting applications for spurious reasons [1], and given the increasing dominance of Apple in the smart phone market (they do have a very good product), the anti-competitive and non-transparent nature of the App Store regulation is becoming a problem.

This comes down to one thing, and one thing alone. Who actually owns the product that you have spent your hard earned money on? Do you want to end up with a situation where you iPhone is deactivated remotely if you choose to end your contract and go to a different network?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple is way too locked down with everything. I run a Pre and there are 3 different google voice apps for it already. It is such a shame to see Apple and Blackberry on top of the smart phone market. I really wish consumers could see threw the hype and realize that the other options are all better for so many reasons.... (windows mobile, android, webos).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple is way too locked down with everything. I run a Pre and there are 3 different google voice apps for it already. It is such a shame to see Apple and Blackberry on top of the smart phone market. I really wish consumers could see threw the hype and realize that the other options are all better for so many reasons.... (windows mobile, android, webos).

No handset is better than the other. It all comes down to opinion. I love my iPhone, I am addicted to it. Its what people find easiest to use. Some may like the iPhone interface, some may like the Pre interface, its up to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No handset is better than the other. It all comes down to opinion. I love my iPhone, I am addicted to it. Its what people find easiest to use. Some may like the iPhone interface, some may like the Pre interface, its up to them.

When a phone is missing huge things such as removable/upgradeable batteries, real keyboards, multitasking, removable storage media, an open development platform etc. I have a real hard time buying the argument that it is as good as it's competitors. I know your from EU so it's a non-factor, but in the US when you factor in the marriage to an ATT plan that will end up costing more then $50/month over the same plan from sprint... there is really nothing to like imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vako it is more like Microsoft needs to be open or else it would fail big time. As for the EU I disagree with the ruling Microsoft can be as anti competitive as it wants but it only begins to hurt itself. As for the Microsoft not allowing Linux on your computer that is a different situation, you bought the hardware either yourself or through a diffrent company, they could control the rights of the hardware, Microsoft only has control over the OS. Where as in the iPhone/iTouch it both Apple's hardware and software. All in all if you don't like it too bad, anti-competitive is a bunch of BS for this scenario as far as I am concerned, if you don't like what a company is doing, fine don't do business with that company.

As for the jail breaking you do own that hardware device Apple can try and STOP you but they can not make it illegal (unless it infringes on another's rights (ie using it to kill someone)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that it all comes down to this.. If you think Apple is doing the right thing, and you think you should back them, then by all means back them.. Buy an I-phone, or hell buy 2 or 3 if you want. That is how you back them.

You think Apple is being asshats, then just go buy something else. No-one is making you buy an i-phone. You can do the same things that the i-phone productively does on other smart phones.

They cannot be charged of the idea that they are denying anything to anyone because it is not the same as if i-phone was the only thing out there. In the computer market you have 2 competitors on the x86 front (well.. not really but I'll stick to my point here). And that is Windows and Linux. Windows is the dominant OS on the platform hands down, like it or not. When you buy a computer it has Windows on it, therefore, if Microsoft denies a program to run on the OS because it is being anti-competitive, then at the same rate they are creating a monopoly because they are by leaps and bounds the more dominant OS on that front, and the only desktop solution that has proper backing and support. It's also held as such because of Windows being the only real compatible OS with so many business solutions that also make it a requirement to use.

On the smart phone side of things, the i-phone is just a small fish in a great big bowl. There are hundreds of other smart phones out there that do the same thing that the i-phone does, just as good as the i-phone does it just may not be as popular as the i-phone, but just as easy to obtain, and to top it off, Apple owns everything in the i-phone structure from the chips to the software to the plastic that houses it, therefore Apple cannot be bound to the idea of being anti-competitive because they are only fending what is rightfully theirs and not stepping out of their own bounds. If you don't like the fact that X app getting the boot from the app store, then buy another phone, does the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They cannot be charged of the idea that they are denying anything to anyone because it is not the same as if i-phone was the only thing out there. In the computer market you have 2 competitors on the x86 front (well.. not really but I'll stick to my point here). And that is Windows and Linux. Windows is the dominant OS on the platform hands down, like it or not. When you buy a computer it has Windows on it, therefore, if Microsoft denies a program to run on the OS because it is being anti-competitive, then at the same rate they are creating a monopoly because they are by leaps and bounds the more dominant OS on that front, and the only desktop solution that has proper backing and support. It's also held as such because of Windows being the only real compatible OS with so many business solutions that also make it a requirement to use.

So because Microsoft is successful it can't deny a app but Apple could it isn't Microsoft's fault that a business put there eggs all in one basket. But still Microsoft would never do this or if they would they would a) Lose customers and B) if they kept going people would move to another OS. It isn't Microsoft's fault though it isn't fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...