"TechCrunch suspects, probably correctly, that apps for Google Voice are being rejected at least in part through AT&T's influence, since Google Voice lets you send free text messages and delivers cut-rate international calls on top of making phone numbers even more meaningless making it scary to AT&T in way like Skype VoIP over 3G." [1]
If you're trying to bypass the phone company that is using the phone as a loss leader of course you can expect that app to be rejected. Skype is approved though, afaik. Is that your only example?
Google voice is one of the most innovative apps? I've never even heard of it before today. Everyone I know uses Skype (which is on the iPhone, right?).
It's not a competitor to Skype. That's Google Talk. I don't think it's unfair to say that Google Voice is generally regarded as an amazing innovation in mobile phone arena.
And speaking of Skype, will they be allowed to do video chat on the iPhone 4? Maybe they will, maybe they won't. I wouldn't bet my house on it though.
Well I'm a consumer so I'm automatically qualified to comment. If Google voice were so innovative and amazing it would be something I wish I could get.
For example, I do wish I could have VLC, but it's pretty obvious why I can't. This is the trade off of controlling your channels. Apple can't just say "well, we let this app on and if people want to use it to watch 'illegal' movies, there's nothing we can do about it", since they very well can do something about it. Android, with their open architecture probably can't block things like VLC so they can't be held responsible for people using it.
> If Google voice were so innovative and amazing it would be something I wish I could get.
It is. When I posted my comment, Google voice was the main example I was thinking of (but certainly not the only one). The fact that you don't know about it is part of the problem. It'd easily be on the top of the app store lists if it was available. It just goes to show that because of Apple you don't even know what you're missing.
Your VLC example doesn't make any sense. You can watch whatever illegal movies (and illegal music) on your iPhone all you want using the built in software. You'll never get VLC, not because of anything illegal, but because "it duplicates functionality already existing in the phone". That's it.
Google voice is what? An implementation of VoIP? I wouldn't call that innovative, there are plenty of companies doing VoIP, none of which would ever be allowed on the iPhone because of carrier restrictions.
>You'll never get VLC, not because of anything illegal, but because "it duplicates functionality already existing in the phone". That's it.
Not true. Have you been in the app store? There are tons of apps that just duplicate functionality. There are several browsers and a few streaming video players.
> Google voice is what? An implementation of VoIP?
No, it's not. I could tell you spend the next 15 minutes telling you what it is or you could just look it up yourself on this thing called the Internet. Your purposeful ignorance here is not a good argument tactic.
The reason that Apple rejected Google voice was because of the "duplicate functionality" argument. Other apps don't prove anything except that they aren't threatening to Apple. As soon as an app exists that is, they just pull out one of these excuses and it's gone.
I did look it up before I posted. Voice IP with some functionality to turn your messages to text. Their not the first or only people to do any of these things.
It is a shame that they used "duplicate functionality" as the excuse, they should have just said "this is not acceptable under our AT&T plan".
Of course, if you have another other AT&T phone (Android, WinMo, Blackberry) you have no problem using Google Voice. The only way you can't use it (with a native app) on the AT&T network is if you have an iPhone.
Also, it's not VoIP from the phone like Skype is. It uses your regular voice connection and voice minutes and not the data connection. What it does provide is a portable phone number, free SMS, voice mail transcriptions, and a host of other calling features. It's the kind of innovative application you'd expect when you combine the cloud with smartphone technology. Apple just doesn't want you to have it.
Unfortunately, back to your original comment about why apps are rejected (private apis, etc, etc) is, unfortunately for you, not true. Lets say you want an app to control your PC bittorrent app from your iPhone? -- Forget it, also not allowed. I understand now allowing apps that put strain on the network or use private apis but rejecting innovative apps or app that hurt Steve Jobs sense of morality just rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather have an open platform with a slower upgrade cycle.
No, you'll never get VLC because there's no point in it; the phone isn't powerful enough to decode videos in realtime unless (a) you use hardware decryption support or (b) they're the size of a postage stamp. The built-in video player supports all the codecs the hardware supports. I really can't think of any benefit to having VLC on a phone.
I would argue that in a conversation about app store rejection policies and specifically Google Voice that someone informing us that they have never heard of it wasn't doing much more than adding noise.
To anyone who has heard of Google Voice it's pretty clear that it's valid to put it forward as a innovative product. The level to which it's failed to permeated the broader public consciousness doesn't count against it at this stage in it's existence.
I'd say your response added just as much noise and introduced a degree of intolerance not necessary to the conversation. Let the non-helpful comments die a silent lonely death, no need to get haughty about it.
If you're trying to bypass the phone company that is using the phone as a loss leader of course you can expect that app to be rejected. Skype is approved though, afaik. Is that your only example?
[1] http://gizmodo.com/5324268/apple-rejects-official-google-voi...