6 ms·

The fact that Google Voice is actually available in the US on pretty much all Android phones, makes your point moot. The iPhone does not have one of the most i

by ahk 16y ago

The fact that Google Voice is actually available in the US on pretty much all Android phones, makes your point moot. The iPhone does not have one of the most innovative apps for a phone. QED.

loewenskind 16y ago
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?).
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  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.
- andybak 16y ago
  Sorry to say it but if you haven't heard of Google Voice you should probably leave this debate to people who are qualified to comment.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    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.
    - wvenable 16y ago
      > 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.
      - inklesspen 16y ago
        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.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        >It is. 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.
        wvenable 16y ago
        > 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.
  - mccon104 16y ago
    I can't down vote this sort of snark enough... insolence doesn't look good on anyone
    - andybak 16y ago
      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.
      - mccon104 16y ago
        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.
        andybak 16y ago
        Fair point. I spend too much time at Reddit and sometimes forget which tone is appropriate. and I'd hate to contribute to making HN another Reddit...

by ahk 16y ago

The fact that Google Voice is actually available in the US on pretty much all Android phones, makes your point moot. The iPhone does not have one of the most innovative apps for a phone. QED.

loewenskind 16y ago

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?).

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
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.
andybak 16y ago
Sorry to say it but if you haven't heard of Google Voice you should probably leave this debate to people who are qualified to comment.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  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.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    > 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.
    - inklesspen 16y ago
      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.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      >It is. 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.
      - wvenable 16y ago
        > 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.
- mccon104 16y ago
  I can't down vote this sort of snark enough... insolence doesn't look good on anyone
  - andybak 16y ago
    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.
    - mccon104 16y ago
      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.
      - andybak 16y ago
        Fair point. I spend too much time at Reddit and sometimes forget which tone is appropriate. and I'd hate to contribute to making HN another Reddit...