Apple Answers the FCC’s Questions

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/

by tvon • 17 years ago

87 59 17 years ago

apple.com

tvon2• 17 years ago

(via Daring Fireball)

isharan2• 17 years ago

In my opinion, this is total BS. Apple would obviously make up some lame excuse and everyone knows it.

Update: Though, there is this at the end: "In little more than a year, we have reviewed more than 200,000 applications and updates."

That computes to around 515 applications per day. Can't really blame them for taking too long, eh?

BRadmin• 17 years ago

And what was that lame excuse again?

jonursenbach2• 17 years ago

This is the kind of problem that you can throw people at though. There is no excuse for them taking this long.

ubernostrum• 17 years ago

Yeah, you can throw people at it. And many of them will be underqualified or undertrained, and will reject things for no good reason...

xsmasher• 17 years ago

More people = less consistency. A common complaint among developers has been the inconsistency of approvals, where one app may be rejected while another one with similar features is improved.

Right now the approval delay is about two weeks - that's not bad. Your testing cycle should be longer than that. An extra two weeks should not be a big deal.

andreyf3• 17 years ago

That computes to around 515 applications per day. Can't really blame them for taking too long, eh?

Yes, you can. Apple could easily afford hiring 250 people to review applications - at 2 applications a day, they should be able to thoroughly test apps the same day they get them.

GHFigs4• 17 years ago

Would you mind explaining that? It isn't obvious to me.

e1ven3• 17 years ago

Question 2: Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications? If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice. Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?

Answer 2: Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application. No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter.

I guess that is about as straight an answer as we could have hoped for on the issue. Apple, not AT&T, made the call.

jf• 17 years ago

As much as I'd like to believe this, it just doesn't feel right. Why didn't Apple respond in this manner sooner? Why did it take a strongly worded letter from the FCC for them to do so?

e1ven3• 17 years ago

One reason may be that AT&T and Google's answers are also now public, so Apple wanted to have it's best face forward.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983512/ATT-Response-to-FCC-iPhon...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18983640/Google-Response-to-FCC

Personally, I suspect that Apple would prefer that AT&T take the blame for as much as possible.

From the tone of the letter, it sounds like Apple tries to shift blame onto AT&T where they can- For instance, Apple was responsible for the initial SlingPlayer rejection.

Apple's response says that they rejected the app because it violates AT&T's TOS, but doesn't say that AT&T requested the rejection.

Viewed in the context of the Google Voice rejection, this leads me to believe that Apple is happy to be able to point to the TOS as the reason for the rejection, rather than having to decide if they want to allow an (indirect) competitor to their iTunes TV store.

jsz02• 17 years ago

Apple's original reason for rejecting the application was that it duplicated functionality. This is almost exactly the same statement with more direct answers to specific questions.

jimbokun3• 17 years ago

"Why did it take a strongly worded letter from the FCC for them to do so?"

Uh, because the FCC has the power and authority to make things very unpleasant for Apple if they didn't reply?

rksprst• 17 years ago

"No contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T have been a factor in Apple’s decision-making process in this matter."

I wonder if that implies that there are contractual conditions and non-contractual understandings that exist, but were not a factor in the decision-making process in this case (but was a factor in other cases). Though I guess answer 3 answers that.

alain94040• 17 years ago

From AT&T's answer, you finally know why all those applications are a problem:

AT&T and Apple discussed a proposed iPhone application from MobiTV and CBS that was designed to stream live video and audio from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament. AT&T and Apple discussed the likelihood that such an application could cause substantial network congestion and degradation of service for certain customers on AT&T’s 3G network, especially customers accessing cell sites located near colleges involved in the tournament.

tamersalama• 17 years ago

I admire the whole set of questions

jhancock5• 17 years ago

The questions are good. The answers may be honest or not. Hard to say. It wasn't too long ago that Apple tried to cover up their problems with backdated stock options.

huhtenberg• 17 years ago

Really ? This beautifully straight answer does actually not cover the case of AT&T calling Apple and asking to not approve the GV:

* It would've not been an act of "Apple consulting with AT&T"

* It would've not been a contractual condition

* It would've not been a non-contractual understanding

It's all legal speak. Apple said what they had to say not to fan the flames.

pbhjpbhj• 17 years ago

If ATT called Apple and simply asked them to deny GV approval then that is certainly a "non-contractual understanding". There do not need to be reverse conditions AFAICT - if there are it's a contract.

relme2• 17 years ago

"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."

How does a 3rd party app prevent voicemail from being stored on the iPhone? I don't understand.

bvttf• 17 years ago

If you actually use Google Voice all calls go through it, and get sent to the GV voicemail, instead of whatever voicemail your phone uses. This would make the Visual Voicemail and SMS that ship with the phone useless.

isharan2• 17 years ago

Yup, that's exactly right. But honestly, what if I want this to happen? Apple assumes that people will get confused. At least put some warning note or something. Though I'm sure that most people who download GV will be aware of what's happening...

relme2• 17 years ago

Oh I see, but does this "prevent" AT&T voicemail from being stored on the iPhone? (Which is what was said)...

I mean you could use both the Google Voice Voicemail and the AT&T voicemail, right?

e1ven3• 17 years ago

Google Voice works by sending an API call to Google, asking Google to dial your phone.

After you answer the phone, Google then dials out to the number specified in the API request.

For instance, if I wanted to call my parents, the app on my iPhone would send a HTTP request to Google with their number. Google then dials me, and once I pick up, it would dial my parents.

My parents would see the Caller-ID from Google, not from my Phone.

If they call back this Caller-ID, Google would answer the call, and then dial my phone, so I could speak with them.

If I didn't answer, then Google would record a voicemail message. This message would be both emailed to me, and accessible via API from the application that I originally dialed them with.

Google's ultimate plan is to allow you to "port" your number to their service, so that your normal, regular number becomes the one on their caller-id, and AT&T assigns you a new number that you would never give out.

po• 17 years ago

I was (am?) still confused by this. I had assumed all this time that the FCC questions were regarding the approved-then-removed GV Dialer application.

My understanding is that on other platforms, the Google Voice dialer does actually hijack the actual phone application. (see [1] for a testimonial) To do that, you would need to reach into unauthorized API's. Google has done that in the past and gotten away with it. They used the proximity sensor to detect when they were near the user's ear for their search app. In my reading of it, Apple is implying that this is what the Google app does, and seemingly wants you to connect those dots to the other three apps.

If it is the case that they are reaching into unofficial API's, then Apple had every right to deny that application. What I still don't have an answer for is why was GV Dialer approved and later pulled?

[1] http://www.joyent.com/joyeurblog/2009/08/03/why-apple-probab...)

tel• 17 years ago

So yeah, sounds like Apple is more or less shooting straight. They're facing a huge problem (hundreds of submissions per day) and are trying to be decent about it.

The Google Voice thing is annoying but not altogether unsurprising since no one is really pretending this is an open platform:

Google is of course free to provide Google Voice on the iPhone as a web application through Apple’s Safari browser, just as they do for desktop PCs, or to provide its “Google-branded” user experience on other phones, including Android-based phones, and let consumers make their choices.

In other words: just try it Google. You're going to play by our rules here.

apgwoz2• 17 years ago

The funny thing about that is, you're still circumventing visual voice mail and all the other stuff they're complaining about by using the web interface, albeit in a much less convenient manner, which is obviously the point.

darkxanthos• 17 years ago

Pondering? Could they choose an any more lazy way to describe this process?

jimbokun3• 17 years ago

"Pondering?"

This seems to call for a parody video of Pinky and the Brain working as App Store app reviewers.

(Apologies to readers too young to get the reference.)

sachinag• 17 years ago

Engadget has AT&T and Google's responses as well as quick commentary from their in-house lawyer: http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/21/atandt-tells-the-fcc-it-h...

jackowayed• 17 years ago

>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.

This is misleading bullshit.

First, they mention the "phone" icon right after complaining that GV is "replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail" to try to give people the false impression that GV is stealing the phone icon, which an app can't even do.

Then, they try to claim that by cherry-picking calls and not letting the forwarded calls hit apple voicemail, they're "disabling" visual voicemail, which is just untrue. People could still call your iPhone's direct phone number, and visual voicemail would work juts fine.

GHFigs4• 17 years ago

I think what they're trying to say is that they are abiding by the general principle of not allowing apps that duplicate built-in functionality, because they feel it might negatively impact the user experience of their product. This is a much more defensible (and I think probable) position than that they are singling it out for purely competitive reasons.

jhancock5• 17 years ago

I think either/both could be the answer. I see no reason why the first outweighs the second.

CamperBob• 17 years ago

Apple must think the FCC is staffed by morons. They "don't know" how the application works, but it "prevents" existing iPhone features from working, and they need to "ponder it some more."

jhancock5• 17 years ago

The FCC certainly used to be staffed by morons. At least tech morons (the board, I don't know about the employees). We at least have a solid chairman now, lets hope its a sign of the times.

padmapper• 17 years ago

I can see a great many people downloading it and then getting confused for a split second every day between the two and keeping track of what they were using each for. Over time that additional mental fatigue translates into lowered satisfaction with the device. It's similar to the fatigue of maintaining different versions/copies of anything in parallel - code, email inboxes, a story that you've told people about an event.

It's much simpler and less fatiguing to have one copy of any given thing. While I might chafe at their deciding this for me, I think their policy makes a certain amount of sense in the context of keeping (most of) their users loving their devices.

Xichekolas• 17 years ago

> give people the false impression that GV is stealing the phone icon, which an app can't even do

I'm glad you pointed this out, because even as a technically-minded reader (albeit not one with an iPhone), I was led to believe exactly that.

jsz02• 17 years ago

It shouldn't take a company with billions in revenue this long to ponder an issue as they say. It makes me wonder if there's a bit of a civil war going on inside Apple over the App Store. Apple initially approved the apps, then un-approved them, and is now leaving the door open to re-approve it. If I were an investor in Apple I would be concerned about the management structure around Apple's single most important product taking weeks to deal with the Google Voice situation that has evolved outside of a techie issue into the mainstream business press (WSJ)

jstevens85• 17 years ago

My guess: Apple has decided that they want to implement Google Voice, Skype directly into the Operating System. Just like Copy-Paste, you won't hear about it until a couple of weeks before the update.

gcheong• 17 years ago

So apple says they haven't rejected the application which in iTunes connect terms would mean that it is still "in review". So did the Google development team mis-read the status or is Google lying about the rejection or did the media jump the gun or is Apple just outright lying now or what? I wish I had access to their iTunes connect account to see for myself.

tvon2• 17 years ago

Apparently Google never said the app was rejected, they only said it had not been approved (which was 6 weeks after it had been submitted).

jzdziarski• 17 years ago

Six weeks is not a long time to wait. I've had applications take 3+ months before they ever get a response. Google should stop acting so entitled and get in line like the rest of us.

lacker• 17 years ago

I'm surprised that Apple rejects 20% of all submissions. That number seems huge!

We receive about 8,500 new applications and updates every week, and roughly 20% of them are not approved as originally submitted.

No wonder complaints are so common.

lallysingh• 17 years ago

It's submissions, not applications. I'd expect the majority of the apps whose submissions were rejected to be updated and resubmitted.

jrockway• 17 years ago

So Apple is evil.

sahaj• 17 years ago

This is an easy to solve problem.

Duplicate phone functionality: Let the user decide which number they want to dial from by changing the Settings on the iPhone and thus making the iPhone capable of making and recieving the phones calls from either AT&T and Google.

Voicemail: Let both AT&T and Google store the voicemails at their own servers and push them down to iPhone.

SMS issue: Solution is same as voicemail. Let the user decide which number they want to send the SMS from, and let both Google and AT&T deliver the SMS to the iPhone Messages app.

This solution will allow for flexibility for both the users and the service providers.

Apple Answers the FCC’s Questions

Related Stories