FCC questioning Apple/AT&T

[inotocracy]

Finally someone starts to put pressure on Apple's approval process. This pleases me. I've read way too many incidents where Apple has rejected great apps because of some vague reason, leaving the developer in the cold. This approval process has been the only thing thats kept me from plunking down $100 for a dev kit, at least maybe after this we'll know more about the "process" and if your app would be more likely to get rejected or not.

http://consumerist.com/5327677/fcc-asks-apple-att-to-explain-why-they-rejected-google-voice-app

 

[Scotch77]

I certainly don't agree with this. The govt has no need to be forcing itself onto the private sector. Eventually America will get to a state where the only organization that can comply with business and trust law is the govt itself.

if you don't like apple's practices, don't buy their product. A iPhone is not a necessity, not is any other electronic device(except maybe medical equipment). Apple would go out if business pretty fast if people stop buying their products. If you don't support apples practices, simply buy from a company whom you support. Its not as if the iPhone or any apple product is phenomenal compared to any other product on the market.

 

[schizrade]

There goes the Fed, sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.

"I don't like that, so save me big daddy government! Make life FAIR!!!!"

With a whimper.

 

[tsuehpsyde]

I can see the Holy War coming, so I won't go into detail since no real discussion will come out of this. That said, I support this decision. Making developers pay back customers for refunds they didn't approve, after their apps get tossed out on their ass for no real reason besides "we say so", months after it was approved, is just bull. Plain and simple. Considering what Microsoft has gone through for bundling IE, it's about time they actually looked into something that's actually non-competitive.

Also, if it wasn't for the "evil govt" watching out for anti-competitive practices, we wouldn't have any small-to-medium sized businesses in this country at all. If you support big business and thumb your nose at mom-and-pop start ups, so be it, but that's not how it should be, imo.

I love Apple, but their business practices with the iPhone, particularly the App Store, have just been downright scummy.

FLAME SUIT, ARMED.

 

[AthlonXP]

It is what it is.. could be far far worse..

 

[SYN ACK]

There goes the Fed, sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.

"I don't like that, so save me big daddy government! Make life FAIR!!!!"

With a whimper.

do you even understand the situation that is the topic at hand regarding why they are getting involved?

 

[Vermillion]

I don't see the problem with the FCC doing this. You don't see Google, Palm, RIM, or Microsoft stopping programs that "duplicates functionality". Can you imagine the backlash if MS had done this? Holy crap. They'd be burning Redmond to the ground.

But because its Apple it's apparently ok.

I love my iPhone 3G but I should be able to use any applications I want without having to jailbreak the phone.

 

[KaosDG]

Perhaps Apple should change the "duplicates functionality" rejection reason to "does it better than what we did, so we got pissy and killed it"

That's what it's boiling down to.

 

[Terpfen]

The App Store's approval process has issues, but I don't think poor communication warrants an FCC inquiry. This pretty much reeks of some bureaucrat getting angry that he can't use Google Voice on his iPhone and misusing his position to find out why not, rather than a legitimate inquiry into business practices. (Not that government usually has legitimate reasons for intrusion into private industry, but I digress.)

It does look bad for Apple that apps they've rejected have appeared on other AT&T phones, but it looks bad for AT&T that the apps being rejected would place a huge strain on their network (Slingplayer in particular), and it looks bad for the FCC that they didn't inquire about Slingplayer's rejection or Skype's crippling.

IMO, we'll probably find out that AT&T is ultimately behind the app rejections, and this will be another wedge issue used to justify the iPhone's eventual availability on carriers besides AT&T.

 

[lopoetve]

I don't see the problem with the FCC doing this. You don't see Google, Palm, RIM, or Microsoft stopping programs that "duplicates functionality". Can you imagine the backlash if MS had done this? Holy crap. They'd be burning Redmond to the ground.

But because its Apple it's apparently ok.

I love my iPhone 3G but I should be able to use any applications I want without having to jailbreak the phone.

Bingo. They can't keep people from developing a program for OSX, they shouldn't be able to keep someone from developing a program for the iPhone.

 

[Terpfen]

Bingo. They can't keep people from developing a program for OSX, they shouldn't be able to keep someone from developing a program for the iPhone.

Why would they want to? Google Voice would attract, not repulse, potential customers.

IMO, it's pretty obvious the heavy hand of AT&T is involved.

 

[lopoetve]

Why would they want to? Google Voice would attract, not repulse, potential customers.

IMO, it's pretty obvious the heavy hand of AT&T is involved.

I'm sure they are - hence why they're on the investigation as well

 

[Scotch77]

I don't see the problem with the FCC doing this. You don't see Google, Palm, RIM, or Microsoft stopping programs that "duplicates functionality". Can you imagine the backlash if MS had done this? Holy crap. They'd be burning Redmond to the ground.

But because its Apple it's apparently ok.

I love my iPhone 3G but I should be able to use any applications I want without having to jailbreak the phone.

No you shouldn't be able to use any application you want, you agreed to the rules of apple when ya bought the product. You agreed when you bought a package based on a environment. Apple is just holding up its end of the deal, making sure that environment is sustainable. If you still do think that you should be able to run anything on your iPhone, then I suggest you return it or secede from the use of the apple provided environment.

Apple delivers the fill package and at least in my opinion they should be able to charge whatever they want and allow or disallow any software or accessory they want. If you don't like their mentality, then either don't buy it or buy it but then don't take advantage of the environment apple provides.

The govt has absolutely no business in this matter. The American people thinking they should, is a wake up call.

 

[Vermillion]

No you shouldn't be able to use any application you want, you agreed to the riles of apple when ya bought the product. You agreed when you bought a package based on a environment. Apple is just holding up its end of the deal, making sure that environment is sustainable. If you still do think that you should be able to run anything on your iPhone, then I suggest you return it or secede from the use of the apple provided environment.

Apple delivers the fill package and at least in my opinion they should be able to charge whatever they want and allow or disallow any software or accessory they want. If you don't like their mentality, then either don't buy it or buy it but then don't take advantage of the environment apple provides.

The govt has absolutely no business in this matter. The American people thinking they should, is a wake up call.

Bull shit. It's my hardware. I bought and paid for it. Apple shouldn't be allowed to tell me what I can and can't run on MY PHONE by virtue of their app store. If they want to restrict pr0n in order to "save the children" that's fine. Whatever helps them sleep at night. Those same kids are just visiting every other site out there anyways. However, Apple shouldn't be allowed to ban software like Google Voice.

Please prove to me how software like Google Voice is going to harm anything. Show me in the EULA for the iPhone where it says I'm not allowed to run software that duplicates functionality.

 

[CEpeep]

Bull shit. It's my hardware. I bought and paid for it.

This is really all there is to it, and it's why I never buy a hardware device (phones, game consoles, media players, etc) until it's been hacked/unlocked to run 3rd party software. If I wanna run Google Voice on my iPod Touch, why the heck should AT&T tell me I can't? AT&T has nothing to do with the iPod Touch at all. Anyway, if your device is jailbroken, check out GV Mobile to use Google Voice. It's probably not as nice as Google's official app would have been, but it's still pretty nice.

 

[AthlonXP]

I'm sure they are - hence why they're on the investigation as well

I agree, i wish that the iPhone was supported on more then just AT&T's network.

 

[schizrade]

do you even understand the situation that is the topic at hand regarding why they are getting involved?

Yes, and developers should just tell apple to take a hike.

 

[Scotch77]

Bull shit. It's my hardware. I bought and paid for it. Apple shouldn't be allowed to tell me what I can and can't run on MY PHONE by virtue of their app store. If they want to restrict pr0n in order to "save the children" that's fine. Whatever helps them sleep at night. Those same kids are just visiting every other site out there anyways. However, Apple shouldn't be allowed to ban software like Google Voice.

Please prove to me how software like Google Voice is going to harm anything. Show me in the EULA for the iPhone where it says I'm not allowed to run software that duplicates functionality.

You are correct which I why I say do not use their environment. Your purchase your hardware, so do with it what you want. But don't try and use the proper environment Apple is trying to create and then complain about them doing the job you paid them to do. Its foolish. 99% of iPhone users pay apple for the environment the phone works on, they suit the majority not the minority. You guys are a member of the minority and need to realize this.

 

[kur1j]

Yes, and developers should just tell apple to take a hike.

I'm sure you don't pay taxes either because you want to "stick it to the man". Your comment isn't even reasonable.

The FCC is getting involved because of AT&T (supposedly) wanting to throw their weight around, not so much that Apple refused the application

This same situation would kinda sound stupid if this was with hardware, and Apple and AT&T told Google and Palm that they couldn't sell their phones because it would compete with their iPhone. You sure as hell would see some flames at that point. But Apple and AT&T have no control over that because they obviously can't stop innovation.

This is the same deal with the Google Voice application. Except for one thing, Apple and AT&T can control the situation. Same principle just with software.

 

[KaosDG]

You are correct which I why I say do not use their environment. Your purchase your hardware, so do with it what you want. But don't try and use the proper environment Apple is trying to create and then complain about them doing the job you paid them to do. Its foolish. 99% of iPhone users pay apple for the environment the phone works on, they suit the majority not the minority. You guys are a member of the minority and need to realize this.

The problem is not the control of the environment.
The problem is the execution of that control.

As an iPhone developer, I have no problem with Apple laying out rules saying "you are not allowed to use framework <xyz>, nor are you allowed to do <abc> in an app, and you're not allowed to use the EDGE/3G network for VOIP"

That is fine.

The problem I have is when I spend time, resources, and money on research, development, and marketing of an app, only to have it rejected by Apple for no apparent reason what-so-ever.
Was the content considered offensive? We didn't think so, but we won't know if thats why we failed.
Were we using private frameworks? Several code audits and engineers pouring over our code revealed that to be a resounding "NO".
Were we using the 3G network for voice calls? No, but we did use it to pull content from our servers.

In all, it cost us roughly 30 to $35,000 on a single app's development lifecycle. In the week we were on the store, we made <drumroll> $1500. Then our app was pulled, with no explanation from Apple other than "it did not meet their content guidelines". Any further prodding on our part for discovery of the offending items was met with stonewalling and complete disregard for a "partners" business. So we can't even remove anything and resubmit it.

One of the things that really bothers me about the whole black-box/big brother approval process is that there is no way to know that your app is going to be approved or rejected.
The closest "worse" platform for approvals being Qualcomm/NSTL, who fail our apps for stupid things like "you left out a period in a sentence".

At this point, it is not financially responsible for my company to invest anymore time in iphone apps, so we've all but completely dropped the platform - which is a shame, as we have several good games and utilities put on the shelf that I think users would have enjoyed.

 

[Absentee]

The problem is not the control of the environment.
The problem is the execution of that control.

As an iPhone developer, I have no problem with Apple laying out rules saying "you are not allowed to use framework <xyz>, nor are you allowed to do <abc> in an app, and you're not allowed to use the EDGE/3G network for VOIP"

That is fine.

The problem I have is when I spend time, resources, and money on research, development, and marketing of an app, only to have it rejected by Apple for no apparent reason what-so-ever.
Was the content considered offensive? We didn't think so, but we won't know if thats why we failed.
Were we using private frameworks? Several code audits and engineers pouring over our code revealed that to be a resounding "NO".
Were we using the 3G network for voice calls? No, but we did use it to pull content from our servers.

In all, it cost us roughly 30 to $35,000 on a single app's development lifecycle. In the week we were on the store, we made <drumroll> $1500. Then our app was pulled, with no explanation from Apple other than "it did not meet their content guidelines". Any further prodding on our part for discovery of the offending items was met with stonewalling and complete disregard for a "partners" business. So we can't even remove anything and resubmit it.

One of the things that really bothers me about the whole black-box/big brother approval process is that there is no way to know that your app is going to be approved or rejected.
The closest "worse" platform for approvals being Qualcomm/NSTL, who fail our apps for stupid things like "you left out a period in a sentence".

At this point, it is not financially responsible for my company to invest anymore time in iphone apps, so we've all but completely dropped the platform - which is a shame, as we have several good games and utilities put on the shelf that I think users would have enjoyed.

QFT. I'd say a little more, but everything im thinking would just be a repeat of what kaos just said.

also kaos, what kind of apps were you developing, the one that got rejected anyway? or is that a no-no to talk about? haha

 

[Scotch77]

The problem is not the control of the environment.
The problem is the execution of that control.

As an iPhone developer, I have no problem with Apple laying out rules saying "you are not allowed to use framework <xyz>, nor are you allowed to do <abc> in an app, and you're not allowed to use the EDGE/3G network for VOIP"

That is fine.

The problem I have is when I spend time, resources, and money on research, development, and marketing of an app, only to have it rejected by Apple for no apparent reason what-so-ever.
Was the content considered offensive? We didn't think so, but we won't know if thats why we failed.
Were we using private frameworks? Several code audits and engineers pouring over our code revealed that to be a resounding "NO".
Were we using the 3G network for voice calls? No, but we did use it to pull content from our servers.

In all, it cost us roughly 30 to $35,000 on a single app's development lifecycle. In the week we were on the store, we made <drumroll> $1500. Then our app was pulled, with no explanation from Apple other than "it did not meet their content guidelines". Any further prodding on our part for discovery of the offending items was met with stonewalling and complete disregard for a "partners" business. So we can't even remove anything and resubmit it.

One of the things that really bothers me about the whole black-box/big brother approval process is that there is no way to know that your app is going to be approved or rejected.
The closest "worse" platform for approvals being Qualcomm/NSTL, who fail our apps for stupid things like "you left out a period in a sentence".

At this point, it is not financially responsible for my company to invest anymore time in iphone apps, so we've all but completely dropped the platform - which is a shame, as we have several good games and utilities put on the shelf that I think users would have enjoyed.

Its a proprietary system, which you want to profit off of. If you don't like it the method of control or don't stand to make profit from app rejections then simply don't develop for the iPhone. Nothing will hurt apple more than if consumers stopped buting the products or developers stopped developing for it.

Im quite annoyed when people act as if they didn't have a choice. You saw profit incentive for the iPhone, you took the chance just like any other business venture. You rolled the dice and lost, Since when are business investments guaranteed. If you don't like the system of control or the environment which it leads to then
a) dont develop for the iPhone
b) continue to loose money.

The govt has no business investigating this. I dont care what Apple does, as long as it is not fraudulent activity where possible contracts are breached.

 

[KaosDG]

Its a proprietary system, which you want to profit off of. If you don't like it the method of control or don't stand to make profit from app rejections then simply dont develop for the iPhone. Nothing will hurt apple more, than if developers stopped developing for it, except if people simply didn't buy the product.

Im quite annoyed when people act as if they didn't have a choice. You saw profit incentive for the iPhone, you took the chance just like any other business venture. You rolled the dice and lost. If you don't like the system of control or the environment which it leads to then
a) dont develop for the iPhone
b) continue to loose money.

The govt has no business investigating this.

You miss the point.
Again, its not the METHOD of control, it's the inconsistent and ambiguous EXECUTION of it.

We rolled the dice, then had the dice removed from the table because Apple said "we didn't like that roll" --- and that's it.

 

[KaosDG]

QFT. I'd say a little more, but everything im thinking would just be a repeat of what kaos just said.

also kaos, what kind of apps were you developing, the one that got rejected anyway? or is that a no-no to talk about? haha

I'm not allowed to discuss it

 

[Scotch77]

You miss the point.
Again, its not the METHOD of control, it's the inconsistent and ambiguous EXECUTION of it.

We rolled the dice, then had the dice removed from the table because Apple said "we didn't like that roll" --- and that's it.

Did you have a contract with Apple to develop such software for their Environment? I doubt it, and if you didnt then what they did is completely legal and ethical. You took and chance and lost, you took a chance without knowledge of a certain outcome. At least at my company we call that Gambling and its not approved of. It seems you may want to get a few new managers or a new law team.

 

[KaosDG]

Did you have a contract with Apple to develop such software for their Environment? I doubt it, and if you didnt then what they did is completely legal and ethical. You took and chance and lost, you took a chance without knowledge of a certain outcome. At least at my company we call that Gambling and its not approved of. It seems you may want to get a few new managers or a new law team.

Our knowledge of the outcome was certain: Our app was approved, and was available. Then it simply was not. No reason, no recourse to rectify.
That's like taking your "gambling" analogy and saying I won at craps, collected my winnings, then was stopped at the door and had them taken away, simply because the house felt like it.
Your argument holds no water.

 

[Scotch77]

Our knowledge of the outcome was certain: Our app was approved, and was available. Then it simply was not. No reason, no recourse to rectify.
That's like taking your "gambling" analogy and saying I won at craps, collected my winnings, then was stopped at the door and had them taken away, simply because the house felt like it.
Your argument holds no water.

But legally a Casino is allowed to do that if it is in their policy. If you go to that casino and then win in which they then take away your winnings, you have no grounds to appeal this. It is in their policy and by entering the casino you agreed to it.

Apple has written policy which enables them to control and manipulate the environment of their products for any reason they see fit. By developing an app for the iPhone, you or your company most certainly agreed to that policy. The same way the gambler agreed to the casinos policy.

Dont tell me my argument holds no substance, it is quite valid and makes sense to anybody who is responsible for their own actions. Dont tell me its not fair for apple to revoke your app, when you agreed in full the ability for them to do such.

 

[lopoetve]

But legally a Casino is allowed to do that if it is in their policy. If you go to that casino and then win in which they then take away your winnings, you have no grounds to appeal this. It is in their policy and by entering the casino you agreed to it.

Apple has written policy which enables them to control and manipulate the environment of their products for any reason they see fit. By developing an app for the iPhone, you or your company most certainly agreed to that policy. The same way the gambler agreed to the casinos policy.

Dont tell me my argument holds no substance, it is quite valid and makes sense to anybody who is responsible for their own actions. Dont tell me its not fair for apple to revoke your app, when you agreed in full the ability for them to do such.

Except legally, the casino can't, by various state laws in every state that allows them.

And legally, AT&T may not be able to do what their doing either, by several state and federal laws. THATS what this is about - determining if they're using unlawful power.

 

[dslrjunky]

But legally a Casino is allowed to do that if it is in their policy. If you go to that casino and then win in which they then take away your winnings, you have no grounds to appeal this. It is in their policy and by entering the casino you agreed to it.

Apple has written policy which enables them to control and manipulate the environment of their products for any reason they see fit. By developing an app for the iPhone, you or your company most certainly agreed to that policy. The same way the gambler agreed to the casinos policy.

Dont tell me my argument holds no substance, it is quite valid and makes sense to anybody who is responsible for their own actions. Dont tell me its not fair for apple to revoke your app, when you agreed in full the ability for them to do such.

wow what and where this casino is? Is thatt really true?

 

[Scotch77]

Except legally, the casino can't, by various state laws in every state that allows them.

And legally, AT&T may not be able to do what their doing either, by several state and federal laws. THATS what this is about - determining if they're using unlawful power.

No such laws exist federal or state, in fact most casinos make their own law under the states gaming commission. If you want to prove otherwise, I suggest you hit up westlaw and provide a reference. The government can be as powerful as the people let it, its laws are not ethical judgments.

wow what and where this casino is? Is thatt really true?

Never said any currently active casino took part is such actions, I am just saying its possible. Its the business whom writes its own legal polices, all are public knowledge and it is the consumer and business job to understand these.

 

[SYN ACK]

Its a proprietary system, which you want to profit off of. If you don't like it the method of control or don't stand to make profit from app rejections then simply don't develop for the iPhone. Nothing will hurt apple more than if consumers stopped buting the products or developers stopped developing for it.

Im quite annoyed when people act as if they didn't have a choice. You saw profit incentive for the iPhone, you took the chance just like any other business venture. You rolled the dice and lost, Since when are business investments guaranteed. If you don't like the system of control or the environment which it leads to then
a) dont develop for the iPhone
b) continue to loose money.

The govt has no business investigating this. I dont care what Apple does, as long as it is not fraudulent activity where possible contracts are breached.

why do you spend such time and resources defending apple?

 

[Scotch77]

There is a right and a wrong and when the govt intrudes on the private sector all consumers loose. You may think you will win, but in the long run further regulation always leads to price increases. I firmly don't believe in anti-trust law, I feel the consumers have a much more forceful say than any govt ever could. It also comes down to the individual being responsible and them knowing their own responsibility, To delegate every task to the govt is foolish and is a slap in the face to all of the responsibilities we should be guaranteed by out constitution.

I dont even own a single Apple product, I have before and don't now. I would argue the very same for any company. I think the anti-trust cases against Microsoft are ridiculous and utterly stupid by nature. Its not that I support big business, but instead support the individual. Just like health insurance, the more regulation increases, the higher prices go for the consumer. The more regulation is any sector the harder it is for competition to sprout, against making prices go up.


As I said I don't own any apple products, and I do not support apple in any way shape or form. Though to those people who do enjoy their products, id like them to be of the highest quality at the cheapest prices for the rest of consumers.

 

[SYN ACK]

There is a right and a wrong and when the govt intrudes on the private sector all consumers loose. You may think you will win, but in the long run further regulation always leads to price increases. I firmly don't believe in anti-trust law, I feel the consumers have a much more forceful say than any govt ever could. .

what are you talking about? the millions of iphone/apple users aren't going to give up their service or threaten to leave over a couple applications or a couple developer/groups that got screwed on their product. so how can you say the "customers" have more forceful say? this isn't as simple or apples-to-apples are you are attempting to make it out to be.

this is about apple quite literally, screwing developers out of their time and money (investment) - with zero regard for explanation. that is a red flag...

It also comes down to the individual being responsible and them knowing their own responsibility, To delegate every task to the govt is foolish and is a slap in the face to all of the responsibilities we should be guaranteed by out constitution.
.

wtf are you on about. you are going on a complete general rant about anti trust laws and power of the consumer. please stick to the topic on the reasons *why* the FCC is getting involved.

I think the anti-trust cases against Microsoft are ridiculous and utterly stupid by nature. Its not that I support big business, but instead support the individual. .

you just contradiected yourself. you think the anti-trust cases against microsoft are "stupid" - yet you say the individual actually has a say when big business has a monopoly.

i sincerely hope you don't study this as your primary form of education.

Just like health insurance, the more regulation increases, the higher prices go for the consumer. The more regulation is any sector the harder it is for competition to sprout, against making prices go up. .

really? because im pretty sure the lack of competition of health insurance is the reason why we are in this mess.

you are a complete contradiction in terms

 

[Scotch77]

what are you talking about? the millions of iphone/apple users aren't going to give up their service or threaten to leave over a couple applications or a couple developer/groups that got screwed on their product. so how can you say the "customers" have more forceful say? this isn't as simple or apples-to-apples are you are attempting to

​

make it out to be.

this is about apple quite literally, screwing developers out of their time and money (investment) - with zero regard for explanation. that is a red flag...

They most certainly can, and new ones may not subscribe. The developers are not being screwed, as they agree and knew full well such a outcome could have occurred,

wtf are you on about. you are going on a complete general rant about anti trust laws and power of the consumer. please stick to the topic on the reasons *why* the FCC is getting involved.

The two are synonymous. Take a look at the Kerry bill which started all of this.

you just contradiected yourself. you think the anti-trust cases against microsoft are "stupid" - yet you say the individual actually has a say when big business has a monopoly.

I made absolutely no contradiction, I think you are having more trouble comprehending the ideas. The customers have absolute say, whether a monopoly or not. A computer nor its OS are life necessities. My view and the meaning of the word monopoly is that a monopoly can only exist when a company is given special privilege where the rest of the sector is not. A monopoly is a good thing, if one could ever actually exist. No know monopoly has ever existed without govt help. As an Example, by definition Standard Oil was not a Monopoly and AT&T was.

i sincerely hope you don't study this as your primary form of education.

Law Student.

really? because im pretty sure the lack of competition of health insurance is the reason why we are in this mess.

you are a complete contradiction in terms

I simply said increased regulation leads to limited competition. I surly do agree that lack of competition is the driving force of our health care problems, and I will attest the lack of competition to government regulation.

 

[KaosDG]

Soapbox much?