Google vs. the iPhone: Now the FCC's Involved
The fallout from the recent ejection of Google Voice from the iPhone App Store has a new twist: now the FCC's getting involved. Though it's nothing more than a simple inquiry and not a formal investigation, the FCC has served Apple and Google both with letters asking about the nature of the conflict, the reasons for the Google Voice app rejection, and for insight into the process of approving and rejecting apps.
There's two sides to this inquiry business. Personally, I come down on the side of this being a very good thing, though admittedly perhaps for the wrong reasons. Specifically, the inquiry will hopefully lead to at least a little more transparency in how apps get approved or rejected. Back when the iPhone App Store first opened, developers joked about the seemingly random approval process for getting applications into the store. Now, as the iPhone radically gains market share and inspires developers to expend real time and sweat and financial resources in a heavily competitive environment, no one's laughing anymore. Frustrated developers (and consumers) are beginning to abandon the platform as their inquiries about rejection and request for useful feedback go completely ignored--since there's no way whatsoever to know in advance if your app is going to be accepted, expending serious development resources on the iPhone begins to look more and more like a bad bet.
Regardless of whether the FCC's involvement results in the reacceptance of Google Voice-related apps, the FCC storming Apple's white towers may result in a little more visibility in how not to waste one's time developing for the platform--and that'll result in more and better competition, meaning the consumer wins.
However, the flip side of this is that Apple simply doesn't owe the developers or the public anything of the sort. Currently, nobody in Cupertino seems to be breaking any actual laws. Exercising bad judgement, maybe--annoying a great deal of developers and consumers, definitely--but not doing anything they're not allowed to do by law. As Sascha Seagan of PC Magazine points out, there's no potential monopoly here, at least not right now. Apple doesn't have a majority in the smartphone market, and they're not preventing Google from continuing to sell products on other platforms. And while it would be great to have Google Voice on the iPhone, and while it doesn't make sense that it was rejected while other VOIP apps are still available, such decisions are down to Apple's business acumen and not a federal agency:
Of all the questions the FCC is asking Apple and AT&T, the only one they could remotely have an interest in is whether AT&T is barring VoIP applications from being used over its network. But then there's no reason for the FCC to go plumbing around in Apple's application-approval policies; they could just ask AT&T about VoIP and be done with it.
The FCC's interference here could actually help Apple, by making its approval process more transparent and thus more appealing. But why should the FCC stop with Apple? There
are lots of problems to be solved. Why doesn't the FCC work to speed up
the Windows Mobile version releases, or program a new browser for the
BlackBerry OS? That's basically what's happening here: The government
is taking a company's legitimate business weakness and literally making
a federal case out of it. (full article)
What do you think? Will the FCC jumping into the fray mean better selection for consumers and a more transparent iPhone development process, or are they interfering unnecessarily? Let us know in the comments.
--Aric A.
Bod on August 05, 2009 at 06:23 AM
I think the real problem is having a taxpayer-funded arm of government interfering in any way with a commercial relationship where neither side is breaking any laws. It's not the FCC's job to ensure 'better selection for consumers' OR to illuminate Apple's business strategy to would-be developers.
Next thing y'know, people will want the Commerce Department to rule on whether Microsoft are 'harming' the US economy by releasing Win7 in September rather than December.
astroturfer on August 05, 2009 at 06:29 AM
give me a damn break, really, how much is microsoft paying you?
"expending serious development resources on the iPhone begins to look more and more like a bad bet."
Mr. Bingley on August 05, 2009 at 06:34 AM
On what possible grounds, other than a desire to control everything, is the FCC involved in this?
Ron Moses on August 05, 2009 at 06:49 AM
@astroturfer, the author explained quite clearly the basis for that statement. It stands to reason that a developer would be hesitant to invest the time and resources in developing an iPhone app when there is a significant possibility that the app will be rejected arbitrarily. The author even linked to an article (written by a former Macworld.com writer, no less) that backs up his statement completely.
Your accusation that the author is somehow a MS shill is baseless and petty, and you owe him an apology.
Alfred E. Neuman on August 05, 2009 at 07:04 AM
"The government is taking a company's legitimate business weakness and literally making a federal case out of it."
After watching this administration's dealings with everything from automobile manufactures up to the current fiasco with health care, I'm not one bit surprised that they think they have the authority to tell Apple how to run its shop.
DCM on August 05, 2009 at 07:09 AM
Government interference at least in this case is warranted. The arbitrary approval process by itself is ok, but when Apple asks developers to refund money to their customers because Apple allowed their app to be sold for a few months and then suddenly decided to revoke it is unreasonable and definitely would be a significant deterrent to anyone wishing to make money off the platform.
Ashcat on August 05, 2009 at 10:11 AM
The issue, I suspect, has to do more with AT&T than with Apple: VoIP eats into AT&T's WAN voice revenues. At home or work or anywhere else there's a WiFi connection, Google's (or anyone else's) VoIP app could be used for all voice calls, so the number of voice minutes (non-WiFi, wide area network) a subscriber would need to purchase would drop dramatically. This would eat into AT&T's revenues substantially.
I'm not sure of the legality, or morality, of all this, but you can't blame any business for wanting to preserve its revenue stream. Apple, on the other hand, should love this app because it increases the attractiveness of the iPhone to potential purchasers.
Greg Q on August 05, 2009 at 12:32 PM
I think that, as a matter of law, no company should have any control over what you put on your computer, once you've purchased it from them.
Since putting non-App Store applications on your iPhone violates the warranty, Apple has, IMHO, forfeited its right to control what is sold by the App Store.
Apple needs to either open it up so you can put non-App Store apps on the iPhone, or it needs to lose its control over what's sold at the App Store.
It's not Apple's iPhone, it's mine. That means that I'm the one who should decide what runs on it, the same way I get to decide what runs on my desktop computer.
Greg Q on August 05, 2009 at 12:39 PM
A separate, and IMHO also interesting, question is "what rights does AT&T have to restrict what you run on your 'smartphone' connected to their network?"
To that, I think the proper answer is "none".
They have the right to offer you a contract. I think they should have the right to offer you different contracts with different bandwidth / download speed limits and different prices. But what you do with that bandwidth should be entirely up to you.
Steven on August 05, 2009 at 07:24 PM
Btw, Google voice is not a true VOIP, yet. It just serves as a way to send free sms and call and receive calls through a central number. It really doesn't eat into AT&T's service other than sms, which there are already thousands of sms apps on the app store. It is also true that developers are hurting because of Apple's injustice. I think they did break a law, they are SCAMMING developers. They get developers then flush them down the drain and tell them that not only do they not get a profit, but they have to pay the customers out of their pocket. That is a SCAM. Just because Apple is a big, trusted company doesn't make them any better than that annoying person telling you you won the lottery and to send in your bank account.
Michael on August 20, 2009 at 08:04 AM
It's really quite simple. Apple gets to decide what products it wants to sell in it's app store. It can be for any reason, personality driven or strategy driven. Does anyone question Wallmart for not carrying certain products in their stores? No, Wallmart gets to decide what it thinks will work best for their stores and their company, end of story; same for Apple.
Nasir Gul on December 07, 2009 at 05:20 AM
love apple and I POD awesome :)
By http://connectonlineshop.com/
Fredik on January 11, 2010 at 11:54 AM
apple the best.
discount air jordan 1 shoes onlines sales on February 26, 2010 at 11:54 PM
You may have not intended to do so, but I think you have managed to express the state of mind that a lot of people are in. cheap air jordan 22 shoes http://www.nikejordanshoes2sell.com/ The sense of wanting to help, but not knowing how or where, is something a lot of us are going through.