Google says Apple silenced its Voice

Rejects non-rejection tale


Google has told the US Federal Communication Commission that Apple rejected the Google Voice and Google Lattitude apps it submitted to the iTunes App Store - though Apple says otherwise.

In fact, Google's response to the FCC's letter (PDFs) requesting clarification of Apple's rejection of the apps states that the rejection was ordered by no less a luminary than Cupertino's SVP of marketing and Jobsian keynote stand-in, Phil Schiller.

But don't get your conspiritorial knickers too firmly in a twist. Apple may merely be playing semantic games. As may Google.

Google had originally asked that its letter to the FCC remain confidential. However, in a blog post on Friday, Google counsel Richard Whitt reported that the company had dropped this request, citing Freedom of Information Act requests submitted to the FCC by "several individuals and organizations" and the fact that Apple had earlier released its own response.

The confidentiality request, according to Whitt, covered parts of the letter that referred to "sensitive commercial conversations between two companies - namely, a description of e-mails, telephone conversations, and in-person meetings between executives at Google and Apple."

Specifically, Google asked the FCC to keep confidential the admission that it was Schiller who personally conveyed Apple's rejections to Google's SVP of engineering and research, Alan Eustace.

Google also had asked the FCC to keep under wraps Apple's stated reasons for rejecting the apps: namely that Google Voice duplicated the "core dialer functionality of the iPhone" and that Google Lattitude replaced the iPhone's preloaded Maps application, which Apple claimed could lead to "user confusion."

Apple's late-August response to their FCC information-request letter (PDF) had a subtler take on Google's firm declaration of rejection. In a public posting of their communication with the FCC, Cupertino claimed that "Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it."

From Apple's point of view, it seems, a lack of approval is not equivalent to a rejection - even if, as Google's letter states, that lack of approval was conveyed by Cupertino's top marketing man and subsequently defined by Google to the FCC as a rejection.

From our point of view: If it looks like a rejection, waddles like a rejection, and quacks like a rejection, it's a rejection. At least until it morphs into an acceptance, which Apple's withholding of approval has not yet done.

That said, we aver that there's little if any boiling bad blood between Apple and Google at this time - at least not enough to cause irreparable harm to what remains a mutually beneficial relationship.

AT&T, for its part, also received a request for clarification (PDF) from the FCC, but it has firmly washed its hands of the entire imbroglio.

In Big Phone's FCC response (PDF), also in late August, senior EVP for external and legislative affairs James Cicconi wrote: "AT&T had no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store. AT&T was not asked about the matter by Apple at any time, nor did it offer any view one way or the other."

In other words, AT&T want no part of any argument over the non-rejection rejection. ®


Other stories you might like

  • UK competition watchdog seeks to make mobile browsers, cloud gaming and payments more competitive
    Investigation could help end WebKit monoculture on iOS devices

    The United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on Friday said it intends to launch an investigation of Apple's and Google's market power with respect to mobile browsers and cloud gaming, and to take enforcement action against Google for its app store payment practices.

    "When it comes to how people use mobile phones, Apple and Google hold all the cards," said Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive of the CMA, in a statement. "As good as many of their services and products are, their strong grip on mobile ecosystems allows them to shut out competitors, holding back the British tech sector and limiting choice."

    The decision to open a formal investigation follows the CMA's year-long study of the mobile ecosystem. The competition watchdog's findings have been published in a report that concludes Apple and Google have a duopoly that limits competition.

    Continue reading
  • Google has more reasons why it doesn't like antitrust law that affects Google
    It'll ruin Gmail, claims web ads giant

    Google has a fresh list of reasons why it opposes tech antitrust legislation making its way through Congress but, like others who've expressed discontent, the ad giant's complaints leave out mention of portions of the proposed law that address said gripes.

    The law bill in question is S.2992, the Senate version of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which is closer than ever to getting votes in the House and Senate, which could see it advanced to President Biden's desk.

    AICOA prohibits tech companies above a certain size from favoring their own products and services over their competitors. It applies to businesses considered "critical trading partners," meaning the company controls access to a platform through which business users reach their customers. Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta in one way or another seemingly fall under the scope of this US legislation. 

    Continue reading
  • Makers of ad blockers and browser privacy extensions fear the end is near
    Overhaul of Chrome add-ons set for January, Google says it's for all our own good

    Special report Seven months from now, assuming all goes as planned, Google Chrome will drop support for its legacy extension platform, known as Manifest v2 (Mv2). This is significant if you use a browser extension to, for instance, filter out certain kinds of content and safeguard your privacy.

    Google's Chrome Web Store is supposed to stop accepting Mv2 extension submissions sometime this month. As of January 2023, Chrome will stop running extensions created using Mv2, with limited exceptions for enterprise versions of Chrome operating under corporate policy. And by June 2023, even enterprise versions of Chrome will prevent Mv2 extensions from running.

    The anticipated result will be fewer extensions and less innovation, according to several extension developers.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022